Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

reply to post by sy.gunson


AAIB are involved in the investigation. I posted this before but here it is again. Investigators believe your theory as EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, again.

www.aaib.gov.uk...

Statement on Malaysia flight MH370 issued 24/03/2014

As set out by the Malaysian PM today, we have been working with the UK company Inmarsat, using satellite data to determine the area on which to focus the search. We are not able to comment further on this investigation, which is being led by the Malaysian authorities.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The team investigating the Boeing 777’s disappearance believe no malfunction or fire was capable of causing the aircraft’s unusual flight or the disabling of its communications system before it veered wildly off course on a seven-hour silent flight into the sea.

An analysis of the flight’s routing, signalling and communications shows that it was flown “in a rational way”.

An official source told The Telegraph that investigators believe “this has been a deliberate act by someone on board who had to have had the detailed knowledge to do what was done ... Nothing is emerging that points to motive.”

Asked about the possibility of a plane malfunction or an on-board fire, the source said: “It just does not hinge together... [The investigators] have gone through processes you do to get the plane where it flew to for eight hours. They point to it being flown in a rational way.”

your opinion:

AAIB are not involved directly in analysis of the disappearance.

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

AAIB are involved in the investigation. I posted this before but here it is again. Investigators believe your theory as EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, again.

www.aaib.gov.uk...

Statement on Malaysia flight MH370 issued 24/03/2014

As set out by the Malaysian PM today, we have been working with the UK company Inmarsat, using satellite data to determine the area on which to focus the search. We are not able to comment further on this investigation, which is being led by the Malaysian authorities.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The team investigating the Boeing 777’s disappearance believe no malfunction or fire was capable of causing the aircraft’s unusual flight or the disabling of its communications system before it veered wildly off course on a seven-hour silent flight into the sea.

An analysis of the flight’s routing, signalling and communications shows that it was flown “in a rational way”.

An official source told The Telegraph that investigators believe “this has been a deliberate act by someone on board who had to have had the detailed knowledge to do what was done ... Nothing is emerging that points to motive.”

Asked about the possibility of a plane malfunction or an on-board fire, the source said: “It just does not hinge together... [The investigators] have gone through processes you do to get the plane where it flew to for eight hours. They point to it being flown in a rational way.”

your opinion:

AAIB are not involved directly in analysis of the disappearance.

edit on 25-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

AAIB said and i quote from your own post

....this has been a deliberate act by someone on board who had to have had the detailed knowledge to do what was done.

What was done?

What was done was to turn the aircraft around. That was easily the actions of a pilot who turned the aircraft around in an emergency for the nearest suitable runway [ie Singapore] therefore was the actions of someone knowing what they were doing.

The subsequent rational action of descending was not performed because of a sudden explosive decompression which was not the original emergency the crew were responding to. It is entirely consistent with pilots becoming incapacitated within 30-45 seconds by their oxygen supply catching fire.

Please direct me to where the British AAIB have actually considered this specific scenario?

An analysis of the flight’s routing, signalling and communications shows that it was flown “in a rational way"

Precisely, you said it yourself. The British AAIB were assisting the malaysian investigators by specific analysis of flight routing, signalling and communications.

There is no evidence they were involved in any analysis beyond this specialised aspect. In fact they even said so to quote again from your post:

We are not able to comment further on this investigation, which is being led by the Malaysian authorities.

Zaphod58
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

Uhm, where did I say it was non-functional? Show me anywhere in that statement. I said that depending on what the ionosphere was doing, the readings could be anywhere from ultra sensitive, to almost unreadable.

Ionispheric changes are accommodated with OTHR by changing the transmission frequency in a range between 3MgHz and 300MgHz. The ionosphere changes in altitude regularly and operators constantly readjust or re-tune the radar. The major issue is manipulating the width of the beam.

There is no evidence to assume that there were anything other than normal conditions so if you wish to suggest that for whatever reason conditions did not permit tracking by Australian OTHR, that is fine however I would like you to share with us any reason you have for believing OTHR conditions were adverse on the day in question?

Ionospheric conditions are more settled and calm at night so I don't find your suggestion very convincing. I would happily acknowledge if you have some concrete information that OTHR was unable to pick up MH370?

reply to post by sy.gunson

It is entirely consistent with pilots becoming incapacitated within 30-45 seconds by their oxygen supply catching fire.

O2 is not flammable it wont burn it is a oxidizer. Flammable material will only burn if O2 is present.

Zaphod58
reply to post by CharlieSpeirs

 

If it was trying to land at a military installation possibly. But usually the procedure is to launch fighters to intercept and identify the incoming aircraft. At that point they have hand signals that can be used to tell the fighter pilots that they are comms out, and the fighters can act as the radio to the tower, or let the tower know, so they can clear the airspace ahead of them.

It was at night in this case and therefore hand signals from the fighter to the airliner would not help much, but generally a fighter intercepting an airliner would be instructed to identify the target and the report back to their controller for further instructions.

Generally if it was identified as an airliner and heading for an airport there would be no attempt to shoot it down.

A more important issue on the mind of an airliner pilot is to find a long enough runway and one without obstructions like high terrain. Turning back to Kuala Lumpur was not a good option because of high ground in the east of Malaysia.

Lostinthedarkness
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

It is entirely consistent with pilots becoming incapacitated within 30-45 seconds by their oxygen supply catching fire.

O2 is not flammable it wont burn it is a oxidizer. Flammable material will only burn if O2 is present.

That is not accurate. Oxygen alone won't combust without a spark. Ambulances and hospitals often carry around canisters of 100% oxygen, and usually these are just fine. But they do have to be careful however about keeping sparks or flame away... the "no smoking" signs in hospitals aren't just there for preventing lung cancer. Like many highly exothermic reactions, the combustion of oxygen has an activation energy. There needs to be an initial bit of energy introduced to the system to get the reaction going. That is where electric arcing in the avionics bay comes into play.

Flight 667 images

If you say that it is not possible I would like to ask you if you ever read the accident investigation report of Egyptair Flight 667?

Egyptair flight 667

If you have, then you can't say it is impossible because that incident is proof that it can and did happen.

reply to post by sy.gunson


answers.yahoo.com...;_ylt=A0SO8wPgaDJTLVMAyStXNyoA;_ylu=X3o'___'ExMzRwNWZ0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1VJQzFfMQ--?qid=1006 021212532

Is oxygen flammable? will oxygen burn by itself without a fuel source?

The answer is resoundingly NO. Oxygen is NOT a fuel. Flames, fire and all related chemical reactions are a result of a FUEL being OXIDIZED, or being combined with oxygen. The application of oxygen to a burning fuel will cause the fire to burn much more vigorously, as well as hotter. Oxygen, by itself, WILL NOT BURN. If it did, our atmosphere (which is 20.9% oxygen) would have burned up a long time ago. Oxygen is mixed with a number of different fuel sources to get a faster, hotter burn. Acetylene, used in metal cutting torches, is mixed with oxygen to get a super hot flame that will quickly cut through metal. NASA uses oxygen to burn hydrogen fuel, not only to get a fast burn required in a rocket engine, but also because surrounding oxygen in the atmosphere becomes much more scarce as you leave the atmosphere for space. Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Does Pure Oxygen Burn? Pure oxygen does not burn, but rather supports combustion. Oxygen is not a combustible material, but a high energy oxidizer. Therefore, pure oxygen is not flammable. For combustion to occur, pure oxygen is not enough. Fuel is needed as well. Reference: www.newton.dep.anl.gov

www.ask.com...

argue with chemistry and these sources .

Any gas in a pressurized vessel can explode if vessel is ruptured, explosive decompression.

reply to post by sy.gunson


There are other ways besides hand signals. The fighter pilot flashes a light across the cockpit to get their attention, and then uses the light to direct the to follow him in.

reply to post by sy.gunson


you stated their oxygen supply catching fire. wrong O2 will not burn period

o2 is a oxidizer with heat = exothermic reaction. it can increase a fire or if a flammable gas is present or flammable material present O2 will allow a fire to happen . You blow pure O2 on a fire sure it blazes up not because O2 is flammable but because O2 allows burning to happen giving the fire more potential for greater and faster oxidation .

reply to post by sy.gunson


The Australians themselves said there were ionospheric issues that would affect if they could see the plane.

It apparently wasn't looking in the right direction either.

In any case, it is understood the Jindalee Operational Radar Network, known as JORN, was focused north when MH370 disappeared and for it to have detected the plane, it would have had to have been facing northwest, which is where MH370 would have approached from.

www.news.com.au... story-fndir2ev-1226858579129

It's not that easy as you make it out to be though. It's better than it used to be, but the beam still bounces off the ionosphere so it's still affected by it.

sy.gunson

Which assumes that there was just one emergency being dealt with, ie fire and excludes the possibility that the crew were not already distracted coping with an electrical failure which led to the fire.

Where a fire to develop from a severed oxygen line, it would be like a huge blow torch, second it would deprive both pilots of breathable air to fight the fire or fly the aircraft, third unconsciousness would ensue in about 45 seconds.

If there was a fire it could have been electrical, solid or liquid...and most likely it would have been a "cascading failure".

If a fire and issues resulting from it, ie merely controlling the aircraft were too huge there would be no time to call for help and efforts to fight a fire fed by bottled oxygen would be futile. The only way to stem a blow torch is to close the O2 supply in another compartment under the floor which itself was probably engulfed in fire.

I'm not sure what you mean by closing the 02 supply in another compartment under the floor? The drop down masks have chemical generators in them to produce O2 for around 22 mins on a B777, and the there are also 200 litre walk around bottles available in the cabin..

Unless of course pilots had already turned around due to a preceding electrical emergency making for Singapore.

Singapore being a superior choice because of the high ground between IGARI and Kuala Lumpur. That after the turn was completed the fire then developed and in the mere seconds available to respond the fire also explosively decompressed the aircraft.

The last turn we were told the plane made was to the North West which is in the complete opposite direction to Singapore and the Indian Ocean... It was the middle of the night, without any electrics/fire why choose Singapore? If it was an electrical failure only I'm sure the crew would have deployed the RAT

If the plane did have an explosive decompression I very much doubt it could have continued for 7.5 hrs.

The route out over the Indian Ocean suggests a course over or near Singapore which infers pilots did intend an emergency landing. They were flying an almost fully loaded aircraft which still had fuel for 7.5 hours. Therefore just any small runway was not going to do.

Again I refer to Gong Kedak Airbase, which is on the coast and the descent and approach would have been over water. It's 100nm from the point where the aircraft first turned (if attempting a diversion). To travel 100nm in a B777 grounding say 350kts would take 17 minutes.

HB.

Until verified pieces of the plane are found in the SIO, I agree with the Australian official who said everything is still speculation.

With that in mind, there has been one theory being widely discussed out in Asia that does make some sense to me:

The pilot indeed was a political activist and made some sort of demand in regards to the release of Anwar. Negotiations broke down or
Malaysia simply did not care (perhaps because there were not that many Malays on the plane), and emotions may have run high, and the pilot took the plane down. To protect themselves from international condemnation, Malaysia simply calls it a suicide.

Someone had mentioned that the cockpit could not be secure from a crew or passengers trying to get in. I'm simply not sure about that, as I've heard how the cockpits have been reinforced significantly since 911. If anyone can outline how it is actually feasible for crew or passenger to break in to the cockpit, let me know (it seems that was the whole point of the reinforcement - to keep them out).

Holes in this for me would be that the pilot could've ultimately landed in another country and caused a spectacle to highlight the issue rather than taking a plane full of people down.

At the same time, there is a lot of speculation on why the estranged wife has not said anything - she has not showed any public sympathy or defense of her husband, nor has she condemned or suggested any possible link. In fact, it's as if she were isolated from any scrutiny - even the FBI had lamented how ridiculous it was that the Malay government wait so long before interviewing her. Is she held somewhere? Has there been any verification that she moved out of the house at some point? I know the transport minister had answered very flippantly in one press conference that he was not aware that anyone had moved out but did not deny it either.

And what of the phone call before the take off?

Still plenty of question marks, and NO answers or tangible evidence to this mystery at this point. Thought I'd share this theory.

Zaphod58
reply to post by haveblue

 

And with a limited cockpit fire, similar to the EgyptAir fire, that went out but took the crew out, the aircraft could keep flying. They wouldn't want to go back to Malaysia, because of terrain they'd have to avoid, and possible strong turbulence off it, with unknown structural damage. So program a destination that you can plug in quickly, going in the right direction to get on the ground fast, and turn to fight the fire. They weren't trying to GET to Australia, but wanted to head to the nearest destination with a long runway while they fought the fire.

Yes, standard procedure is to get on the ground fast, but if the crew was overcome fairly quickly then there's no one to get it on the ground. Which means it keeps going until it either comes apart, or runs out of fuel.

Surely there would have been time for a may day warning!!

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


Radio calls come last. You keep the plane flying, work the problem, then worry about radio calls.

Zaphod58
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

Radio calls come last. You keep the plane flying, work the problem, then worry about radio calls.

Not kind of simultaneous ish. This would make sense when you consider that there would have been at least 2 in the cockpit.

I dont believe that a distraction prevented them from making communication but something actually stopping them, hence the turn off of transponder! This was no accident in my humble view!

When things dont add up its because the equation is wrong! The variables arent as presented/suggested!!

Why did Lieutenant General Tom McInerney state on Fox news that the plane was in P!!

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


One pilot gets up to deal with the fire, or whatever the problem is, while the other concentrates of flying the plane and assisting however he can (checklist or whatever).

Sometime after they deal with the radio. That is a distraction you don't need while dealing with a problem.

Zaphod58
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

One pilot gets up to deal with the fire, or whatever the problem is, while the other concentrates of flying the plane and assisting however he can (checklist or whatever).

Sometime after they deal with the radio. That is a distraction you don't need while dealing with a problem.

But pilots can comms whilst flying the plane. Its not in anyway difficult in multi- tasking terms. I dont buy it!

I always used to speak on phone via ear piece when driving or on computer. No difference!!

This was no accident!!

If it was an explosion I would think one of those Satellite's would have recorded a massive explosion and someone would be picking it up in the satellite searches. It would be a fireworks display over someplace.

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


You don't try to do two or three things at once when dealing with an emergency. You worry about the emergency first, and deal with other things later. If you get distracted in your car, you, and maybe a couple other people get hurt. You get distracted in a plane, and 300 people die.

Deal with the emergency first, worry about talking to people later. If it's something bad enough it won't matter if you tell them you're in trouble or not. And if it's not bad enough, then waiting a few minutes to talk to them isn't going to make a difference because you're going to be able to put the plane back on the ground.

Lostinthedarkness
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

answers.yahoo.com...;_ylt=A0SO8wPgaDJTLVMAyStXNyoA;_ylu=X3o'___'ExMzRwNWZ0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1VJQzFfMQ--?qid=1006 021212532

Is oxygen flammable? will oxygen burn by itself without a fuel source?

The answer is resoundingly NO. Oxygen is NOT a fuel. Flames, fire and all related chemical reactions are a result of a FUEL being OXIDIZED, or being combined with oxygen. The application of oxygen to a burning fuel will cause the fire to burn much more vigorously, as well as hotter. Oxygen, by itself, WILL NOT BURN. If it did, our atmosphere (which is 20.9% oxygen) would have burned up a long time ago. Oxygen is mixed with a number of different fuel sources to get a faster, hotter burn. Acetylene, used in metal cutting torches, is mixed with oxygen to get a super hot flame that will quickly cut through metal. NASA uses oxygen to burn hydrogen fuel, not only to get a fast burn required in a rocket engine, but also because surrounding oxygen in the atmosphere becomes much more scarce as you leave the atmosphere for space. Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Does Pure Oxygen Burn? Pure oxygen does not burn, but rather supports combustion. Oxygen is not a combustible material, but a high energy oxidizer. Therefore, pure oxygen is not flammable. For combustion to occur, pure oxygen is not enough. Fuel is needed as well. Reference: www.newton.dep.anl.gov

www.ask.com...

argue with chemistry and these sources .

Any gas in a pressurized vessel can explode if vessel is ruptured, explosive decompression.

Let me try... FAA approved polyurethane foam plastic trim burns at 250 degrees F
Aircraft Kapton wiring transitions to a flamable gas at 385 degree Celsius
Various methacrylate fixtures - highly flamable

In fact in the presence of 100% oxygen you only need 5% vapour by volume of hydrocarbon compounds.

Where do you get hydrocarbon compounds?

Well for a start if there is electrical arcing in the Avionics bay oxygen hoses and electrical wiring are already being vaporised even before fire reaches the cockpit.

Look at this small room called a cockpit. Tell me all the fuel in this room which you can't see?