|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 18, 2014 16:46:41 GMT -5
If I had to bet money on it right now, I'd go with the mechanical failure/fire theory. It doesn't explain everything, but it could explain most of the verified facts (as opposed to unverified claims and theories proffered by this person or that, including Malaysian officials). These pilots look as innocent as can be, and it seems no one else aboard could have pulled off such an intricate feat as a terrorist/hijack deal would have required.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 18, 2014 17:11:38 GMT -5
I sent the link about the fire smoke thing to my buddy that was an Alaskan Airlines Captain. Here is his response.
Terry -
The overall idea is an interesting one, but there are a few holes in his speculated theories of events that shows he has never worked for an airline and hasn't flown large, modern jet aircraft. He doesn't know common airline emergency procedures.
"Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter, but this will last only a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one in my flight bag, and I still carry one in my briefcase when I fly.)"
- This is not correct at all. We definitely put on our oxygen masks (and smoke goggles or smoke mask) in a fire and set them to 100% with positive pressure. The smoke hoods he is talking about are for use if you have to go to the cabin and fight a cabin fire or for evacuating a smoke-filled aircraft on the ground.
"But let's accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. That is an acceptable scenario."
- This is ridiculous and preposterous. No airline in the world teaches that as a procedure and it makes no sense. If the fire was anywhere in the pressurized portion of the aircraft - which includes almost everything - it obviously wouldn't help. If the aircraft had depressurized, you would be doing an emergency descent to keep your passengers alive - fire or no fire. When there is a fire aboard you descend and land at the nearest suitable airport - you don't climb.
"Flight 370 would have had fuel for Beijing and an alternate destination, probably Shanghai, plus 45 minutes-say, 8 hours."
- This is minimum fuel required for domestic flight, not FAR Part 121 international rules.
So, in summary, this guy has given himself away as a light airplane pilot who doesn't know much about large aircraft and airline emergency procedures, but his thoughts about it being a catastrophic event is certainly highly possible.
I'll send him the latest, that may be a breakthrough.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Mar 18, 2014 17:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 18, 2014 19:15:31 GMT -5
I saw that just before I posted my bet on a mechanical failure. It may have been MH370 they saw, but as of now it's yet another unreliable, unverified report.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 18, 2014 19:19:37 GMT -5
For it to have been a deliberate act, as the Malaysian government is positing, one or more individuals would have had to jump through so many hoops that he would have had to be a contortionist. The simplest explanation is almost always the best, except in the movies.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 18, 2014 19:59:56 GMT -5
Did or didn't it make a right turn to the NW after overflying peninsular malaysia (past penang/langkawi)?
If not, it seems like it would have also overflown indonesia, assuming a direct course towards the southern maldives.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 19, 2014 4:48:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 19, 2014 4:54:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 19, 2014 6:52:41 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/nsa-retrieve-replay-phone-calls-161842170.htmlMaybe the NSA has been focusing on the wrong data? All that capacity (if it actually is all that capacity, and not a lot of smoke) hasn't done jack to solve the mystery of that 777. It's like "We've got phone calls covered, but hey, we're still working on some other things." Oh, and Mike, I've quoted your earlier post so you wouldn't have to say it again. Duh. It's not like your taxes are paying their ((NSA)) salaries. Mike In general, no, but there have been a few times in the last decade that I have exceeded the form 2555 exclusion. For 2012 I wrote the IRS a check for about $2500.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 19, 2014 9:26:38 GMT -5
This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 11:41:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 19, 2014 12:13:24 GMT -5
If they ever find the thing we will be with out a neutral topic that can go 9 pages.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 19, 2014 12:42:34 GMT -5
Neutral??? Obama's slow and weak-kneed reaction to this crisis is typical of his administration. Anybody with any claim to a pair of balls would have had the 7th fleet out there looking for that plane by now.
That should do it.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 19, 2014 14:58:21 GMT -5
Neutral??? Obama's slow and weak-kneed reaction to this crisis is typical of his administration. Anybody with any claim to a pair of balls would have had the 7th fleet out there looking for that plane by now. That should do it. Thanks, no thread here would be complete without that. However, I have a question about the article in James' post. It says that the satellite data show that the plane was ON one of two arcs. I thought that wasn't true, that the satellite could only say it got a signal, that the signal must have come from within a big circle of which those two arcs are just part, and they are useful only to the extent that they narrow the search area in the north somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Mar 19, 2014 16:00:14 GMT -5
.... However, I have a question about the article in James' post. It says that the satellite data show that the plane was ON one of two arcs. I thought that wasn't true, that the satellite could only say it got a signal, that the signal must have come from within a big circle of which those two arcs are just part, and they are useful only to the extent that they narrow the search area in the north somewhat. My understanding is the satellite report placed the airplane at a point somewhere on a circle whose center was directly below the satellite. Part of the circle has been ruled out because it is too far away for the plane to have reached. That left a single arc. The middle part of that arc has been ruled out because that area is deemed to have been thoroughly searched. That left two arcs: one to the northeast running over land, including China, and the other in the southeast, running over water - the picture we have all seen. If it was indeed Flight MH370 that the radar saw, it means that at that moment the plane was somewhere along one of those two arcs. It could have been headed in any direction.
My guess is it was somewhere along the southern arc over the Indian Ocean headed southeast. In which case it probably continued until it ran out of fuel and crashed.
But again, I'm not sure why they know for a fact it was Flight MH370.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 20, 2014 2:17:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Mar 20, 2014 4:47:40 GMT -5
Big maybe. It couldn't be more remote. If it pans out, it makes one wonder why this thing was aimed at disappearing entirely.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Mar 20, 2014 5:51:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 20, 2014 8:24:30 GMT -5
That's most of the way to Antarctica. If it's not the 777, I wonder if it could be the lost Nina, the yacht that went missing almost a year ago with Danielle aboard. It's 80'
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Mar 20, 2014 8:32:59 GMT -5
That is pretty much where you'd wind up if the captain said, "You know what, I'd like to go ANYWHERE but Beijing tonight."
|
|