MH370 missing (Part 2)

a reply to: roadgravel
There was some discussion here a few pages ago about fires affecting different aircraft systems like radio and navigation, and this post is relevant:

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: Arbitrageur---->and that radio would be the last to go in that case implies he has way more knowledge of how the aircraft in engineered than he is likely to have.

In an electrical jet like the B777 systems are designed for redundancy.
With my experience and knowledge of the B777 systems the flight control systems would probably last longest in case of a fire.
As long as there's no structural damage to the fuselage.
But every emergency is different, so that's just an educated Guess.

Ivar sounds like he might know more about it than the people who keep saying the radio would be the last thing to go in a fire.

If the fire is fed by the oxygen system, it could burn intensely for a period of time, and then when the oxygen supply is depleted, the fire could go out or at least become greatly reduced in intensity. Even if it was a battery fire that damaged the fuselage, planes have flown before with extensive damage to the fuselage though I dismiss this idea since fuel efficiency would suffer and it wouldn't have flown as far as the Inmarsat data suggest.

Regarding Saucy Kate's sighting, she said that she remembers thinking at the time she made the sighting she should probably write it in the log, but she didn't, so she doesn't know what time the sighting happened. She posted her GPS logs which at first got some people excited when they thought the times were UTC +8, but after finding out they were UTC+7 analysis showed that there would be problems her GPS logs versus the aircraft location. Her thread was an interesting read in any case, but it's a highly questionable report, and the witness is well aware of that and doesn't try to claim otherwise.

originally posted by: roadgravel
If this was MH370, and it was on fire, what are the chances it could fly for hours more until fuel exhaustion? A single engine fire that goes out?

All this talk of fires and accidents is part of the strategy of the cover-up.

Bore and distract into submission.

The plane was hijacked and to minimize the already Billions in damages the ONLY tactic available is to pretend it wasn't.

If it was near 2AM her time it would be near 3AM Malaysia which could place the plane near there if it went tot he NW way point then turned south. Still a long shot, but nothing seems to make sense anyway,

Interesting article.

Apparently there was an unusual acoustic event near Rottnest Island about the time that MH370 should have run out of fuel. Interestingly, it doesn't correspond to any of the satellite data.

Tried to get a thread going here but no takers...

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: roadgravel

I don't believe this for a second. Just more obfuscation.

If there was a plane on fire a MAYDAY would have been broadcast.

Whatever happened to the plane, we can hopefully agree that it was extraordinary, also compared to other plane crashes and disappearances. It was not a "normal" plane crash by any means.

So even scenarios which otherwise would seem far-fetched (or less likely) should be considered.

I think the fact that the plane had lots of lithium batteries loaded is somewhat under-represented in the media. This makes a fire even more likely.

TBH, the idea that a fire broke out and disabled equipment and crew/passengers...and the plane nevertheless continued flying until it finally ran out of fuel..sounds MORE plausible than the "crazed suicide pilot" theory.

Let me re-cap, we now have at least TWO witnesses who saw (or think they saw) a burning plane, and there is also that one report where someone allegedly picked up garbled communication claiming it was MH370 where they heard someone talking about a disintegrating/depressurized cockpit or something. Looking at those things, a rather plausible theory can actually be formed.

Theory:

Fire broke out and disabled crucial communications equipment.
When the fire broke out, the pilot(s) immediately changed course for an emergency landing at the nearest suitable airport.
(Hint: Fire over a vast area with nothing but water, somewhere in the Indian ocean AND comms out == would be as bad is it can even get)
Pilot attempted several things to extinguish the fire, including climbing to max height, likely unsuccessful.
Pilot, as a last measure attempting to extinguish fire DEPRESSURIZED cockpit, possibly even entire cabin. (Possible?)
Because of that, he needed to fly low. (He didn't fly to "evade radar" as some suggested, he flew low because the entire plane was depressurized)
At this point, no idea about the state of the plane, crew, passengers. Combination of fire/smoke and depressurized cabin means likely very slim survival chances, so it was only a matter of minutes until crew/passengers were disabled due to lack of oxygen
Plane continued flying as a ghost plane and then finally crashed.

It is also thinkable that at some point the fire was indeed extinguished (?), one reason that the plane was able to fly as long as it did until it ran out of fuel.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

There are a few problems with your theory. First, you say "Fire over a vast area with nothing but water, somewhere in the Indian ocean AND comms out == would be as bad is it can even get." But this fire would not have broken out while the plane was over the Indian Ocean. They were over the South China Sea when the plane turned around. Wouldn't have been until an hour or so later that the plane was actually over the Indian Ocean, and at this point there would have been plenty of land near. Second of all, is it really feasible for a depressurized plane containing a fire severe enough to take out all communications and kill everyone on board to continue flying for 6 more hours?? Last, there was never once any signs of distress. just moments before the plane turned back, the pilot communicated with ATC indicating absolutely no problems whatsoever. I'm not saying it's impossible, but how unlikely is it that at the exact moment of ATC handover a fire broke out? One last things that I forgot to mention, which actually likely is the most important point of them all, is that the transponder was actually turned off about 5 or so minutes BEFORE the pilot communicated with ATC. If these systems were disabled by a fire, undoubtedly the pilot would have communicated so, rather than a nonchalant "MAH 370, goodnight."

a reply to: kayej1188

The fire was more than likely already burning. SwissAir 111 was on fire for something like 20 minutes or more before there was any indication of smoke in the cabin, and another few minutes before fire actually broke out where the crew could see it. Same with ValueJet in Florida.

The electronics bay is below the cockpit, with a trap door in the floor to get to it, so there wouldn't be any indication of trouble prior to the fire cutting communications and other systems failing.

One last things that I forgot to mention, which actually likely is the most important point of them all, is that the transponder was actually turned off about 5 or so minutes BEFORE the pilot communicated with ATC

The transponder shutdown 2 minutes after the last voice communication with ATC.

The report

At 01:19:24 MYT LUMPUR RADAR at KLATCC instructed MH370 to contact HO CHI MINH Air Traffic Control Centre (HCMATCC) on radio frequency 120.9 MHz. MH 370 acknowledged with “good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero”.

At 01:21:04 MYT, MH370 was observed on the radar screen at KLATCC as it passed over waypoint IGARI. At 01:21:13 MYT the radar label for MH 370 disappeared from the radar screen at LUMPUR RADAR KLATCC.

Yes, after the last contact, and ACARS was probably reset at 18:25 causing the spike in the BFO.
There is no handshake between 17:07 and 18:25 and 18:25 was a log-on initiated by the aircraft.

So if it was a fire, why aren't all 777's grounded until the problem is found?

Boeing hasn't lifted a finger to address the possibility of a fault with the plane.

No warnings, no alerts, no notifications, NOTHING.

It's all about denying the plane was hijacked.

a reply to: Psynic
It could have been a fire, a suicidal pilot, a hijacking, or something else like decompression. Why ground a plane with one of the best safety records in the business if you don't know the cause?

I'll bet Boeing has done some internal reviews that they haven't made public. They do have an airworthiness directive out on other models of the 777 which didn't apply to the model used for MH370, but 'm not 100% sure why not, since it's a slightly different design but maybe not different enough? That was to fix a possible decompression problem.

US issued warnings over Boeing 777 'weak spot'

American transport officials warned of a potential weak spot in Boeing 777s which could lead to the "loss of structural integrity of the aircraft" four months before the disappearance of Malaysia airlines Flight MH370.

The Federal Aviation Administration in Washington drew up an Airworthiness Directive in November. It was triggered by reports of cracking in the fuselage skin underneath a Boeing aircraft's satellite antennae.

In its directive the FAA, which is responsible for supervising the safety of American-made aircraft such as Boeing, told airlines to look out for corrosion under the fuselage skin.

This, the FAA said, could lead to a situation where the fuselage was compromised leading to possible rapid decompression as well as the plane breaking up.

"We received a report of cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin underneath the SATCOM antenna adapter," the FAA warned. "During a maintenance planning data inspection, one operator reported a 16-inch crack under the 3-bay SATCOM antenna adapter plate in the crown skin of the fuselage on an aeroplane that was 14 years old with approximately 14,000 total flight cycles.

"Subsequent to this crack finding, the same operator inspected 42 other aeroplanes that are between 6 and 16 years old and found some local corrosion, but no other cracking. Cracking and corrosion in the fuselage skin, if not corrected, could lead to rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the aeroplane."

The FAA directive in November called for additional checks to be incorporated into the routine maintenance schedule of the worldwide 777 Boeing fleet.

Even though that airworthiness directive doesn't apply, I haven't ruled out the possibility that they might issue a another one to encompass other models of the 777, or expand the existing directive to the other models.

The fire hypothesis sounds more plausible than the hijacking to me, but we shouldn't rule out anything yet. Also remember they carried batteries in the cargo area which could be prone to fire, so that's another reason Boeing wouldn't ground the fleet, since a fire caused by carrying dangerous batteries in the cargo compartment isn't exactly a problem with the aircraft.

a reply to: Psynic

They didn't ground the MD-11 after the SwissAir accident, or the DC-9 after ValueJet.

There have only been two cases of aircraft being grounded in modern times, and only one of those was the result of an accident, and that was many years ago.

The Australian government has issued a tender for search teams, giving them 300 days to find the aircraft. They must maintain a search rate of 5,000 km2 every 25 days, and 60,000 km2 by the end of the search. They have 30 days to start after contract award, and bids are due by June 30th.

www.flightglobal.com...

>>
If these systems were disabled by a fire, undoubtedly the pilot would have communicated so, rather than a nonchalant "MAH 370, goodnight."
>>

Again, we're dealing with uncommon and very likely "first of its kind" occurrences here.
We know already that pretty much nothing about this disappearance is "normal" so we cannot discount a scenario just because it goes against what we would assume would "normally" happen.

I am also aware that witness accounts are usually to be taken with a grain of salt, but heck, we have people, the fisherman and that sailor-women having seen a flying plane. I don't think we can simply "disregard" this. They have seen SOMETHING. For me, whatever they saw (aside from my initial doubts early on in this "investigation")...NOW has a lot more substance and is more important as compared to all the non-information about this disappearance we have so far.

>>
If these systems were disabled by a fire, undoubtedly the pilot would have communicated so, rather than a nonchalant "MAH 370, goodnight."
>>

Again, we're dealing with uncommon and very likely "first of its kind" occurrences here.
We know already that pretty much nothing about this disappearance is "normal" so we cannot discount a scenario just because it goes against what we would assume would "normally" happen.

I am also aware that witness accounts are usually to be taken with a grain of salt, but heck, we have people, the fisherman and that sailor-women having seen a burning plane. There is no reason why they would make this up. I don't think we can simply "disregard" this. They have seen SOMETHING. For me, whatever they saw (aside from my initial doubts early on in this "investigation")...NOW has a lot more substance and is more important as compared to all the non-information about this disappearance we have so far.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
>>
If these systems were disabled by a fire, undoubtedly the pilot would have communicated so, rather than a nonchalant "MAH 370, goodnight."

Unless the fire had already disabled the radio before he knew there was a fire, or before he had a chance to report it, or he was more busy reacting to the fire so that communication was a secondary priority.

I haven't found anything authoritative to support or deny the two alleged radio contacts with the plane after transponder shutdown.

The JAL pilot mentioned contact and a garbled response or the reception of a transmission by US military at a Thai AFB base. If either is true then the radio was working at least a short time from that point.

The US military contact seems fishy since the government hasn't confirmed it.

My opinion is that a fire is not the cause, it has been flying for 7,5 hours until fuel starvation.
A fire would have brought the aircraft down well before it did run out of fuel in my opinion.
It has been said that ACARS can be switched off, but not completely, the satcom terminal remains active untill the engines stop running.
Knowing this, it is odd that there is a gap between 17:07 until 18:25 in the data that was released.
They have been trying to contact the aircraft but without success, and at 18:25 the satcom terminal came back online and did a log-in request.
So was there some kind of electrical problem on board, what could cause a power outage which leads to a shutdown of the satcom terminal.
And how would that affect the instrumentation and communication equipment aboard the aircraft.
This was a night flight, without the transponder they are flying blind through an area with a lot of traffic.
After the disappearance of flight MH370 another aircraft from Malaysia Airlines had to make an emergency landing in Japan after an electrical generator failed.

To my knowledge each engine has an electrical generator, so it seems that this aircraft was flying with a malfunctioning generator and during flight the other generator failed as well.
The APU in the back of this plane did start and supplied electricity to the systems.

Is it far fetched to think that MH370 was also flying with a malfunctioning generator, and when the other generator broke down, the APU did not start.