i still don't think crashing into the water was the original goal, although it's entirely possible that's where it ended up. this guy knew what he was doing, and spent a lot of time very purposefully "wandering around".
I don't think the evidence available to date supports "purposefully," and the apparent "wandering around" could just be an artifact of poor quality and very sparse primary radar data. It is not unusual for things as mundane as flocks of birds, or even ocean swells, to appear and disappear as primary radar targets, and altitude data is usually not available at all. Minimum altitude can be inferred by the range from the radar site to the target (due to the curvature of the Earth), but even that is subject to substantial errors due to refraction and diffraction. I have low confidence in the reliability or credibility of the primary radar data that has been publicly disclosed.
The most reasonable scenario, IMO based on highly incomplete information, is:
1) Some serious in-flight event over the South China Sea, resulting in an abrupt electrical and radio communications failure of unknown extent.
2) Redundant systems may have kept the autopilot and flight control systems at least partially operational.
3) The pilot(s) responded by executing a turn back toward the island of Palau Langkawi, located near the east coast of the Malacca Straits, which may have been the best suitable runway available with an unobstructed approach path. Such a turn might reasonably have been initiated by placing the autopilot in heading-hold mode and selecting an approximate heading to Palau Langkawi. N.B. I don't know anything about the specific 777 systems, but after wing-leveling, heading-hold is just about the most basic functionality provided by any autopilot system, and possibly the most likely to still be available following a critical electrical failure.
4) If the flight crew (and passengers, probably) were subsequently incapacitated ... due to smoke/fumes in the cabin or loss of cabin pressure or ??? ... basic autopilot functionality and the natural stability of the airplane would have allowed it to continue cruising on roughly the last selected heading (toward the southwest, more or less) until fuel exhaustion or catastrophic failure of the autopilot or basic flight control systems. On the other hand, a major fire that burns for very long is likely to result in structural failure of the airframe long before fuel exhaustion, which seems not to be what happened.
This blog, previously linked in this thread by kwagner, explores this scenario in greater detail. I don't agree with it all, but it's still recommended reading.
quote
one outcome i'd like to see is that airplane builders make it a little harder to just flip a few switches and disconnect from the air traffic system.
In the big airline jets it's not that easy already, but fire or explosion can disable electronics and communications systems rather rapidly and unpredictably.
I have heard ... unverified ... that MH-370 may have been transporting more than a thousand pounds of Lithium Ion batteries in the cargo bays. It is already known that Li-Ion batteries can short internally (like all batteries) and subsequently go into thermal runaway (unlike most other batteries) and ignite adjacent batteries. That would certainly provide both a source of very hot fire and a source of toxic fumes, but I don't know the proximity of the forward cargo bay to the central electronics/communications bay located directly below the cockpit floor of the 777.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-24-2014).]
Whatever happened, I don't think it was a pilot suicide. If what happened was intentional, why would that much planning and effort go into hiding the plane? I think most suicidal people WANT to be found at least after, if not before, they are successful.
Whatever happened, I don't think it was a pilot suicide. If what happened was intentional, why would that much planning and effort go into hiding the plane? I think most suicidal people WANT to be found at least after, if not before, they are successful.
Not all are crying for attention. Some just want to die.
I don't think the evidence available to date supports "purposefully," and the apparent "wandering around" could just be an artifact of poor quality and very sparse primary radar data.
The person flying could have been totally despondent too, wandering aimlessly, then giving up and ramming into the ocean. Flight crew might have even been trying to talk him down and he finally stopped listening... We will never know.
If it was taken they have had a long ass time to now fly over or submarine and plant a fake debris field complete with some bodies and seats. If I was to do it that would be my first step as to draw attention away from places it could be. In the time they waist looking for it I would be painting it and prepping it for the specific mission I had at hand. During WW2 subs would shoot contents out the torpedo tubes to make it look like they were hit to get away.
If it was taken they have had a long ass time to now fly over or submarine and plant a fake debris field complete with some bodies and seats. If I was to do it that would be my first step as to draw attention away from places it could be. In the time they waist looking for it I would be painting it and prepping it for the specific mission I had at hand. During WW2 subs would shoot contents out the torpedo tubes to make it look like they were hit to get away.
Good, looks like am not the only one not buying it.
With it being 2 weeks now, since it got lost, (was going to say crashed, or was stolen, but lost just seemed a better choice) are the conspiracy people just waiting to say that any crash wreckage is not real, and that the government took a fake plan and blew it out of the sky, just to say they found the missing plane? I mean they would have to fake the bodies, but in those country's how hard would it be to find a couple hundred cadavers and toss into the plane before they blew it up. Maybe its taking this long, because its a hard task to fake dental records and or other misc things before they blow it up, or shoot it down, or fly it into the water at mach 1.
At this point I really believe the plane was taken someplace, passengers killed and the plane will show up later. How hard would it be to take this plane and later shoot down another similar plane, have this one fly in place of it, so it looks like a legit flight plan and then crash it into some place. Clone some transponders and such......
Dat makes 3 of us, I suggested that a page or 2 back.
------------------ 857GT Part 85GT Part 87GT Part Caddy, 93 Eldorado 4.9, 5spd Dual O2 Custom Chip, Custom Exhaust. MSD Everything Now with Nitrous. Capt Fiero --- My Over View Cadero Pics For Sale $4000, Yellow 88GT 5spd Full Poly Suspension, Lowered 1/2" in front, Corner Carver.
I don't know the Malaysian and ICAO restrictions, but with regard to the FAA I can personally attest, "Very few without specific individual approval by the Aeromedical Certification branch of the FAA." Even most over-the-counter medications are restricted and many (e.g. Benadryl) are prohibited altogether. See FAA: Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners: Pharmaceuticals. There is a perhaps more useful list here. Any drug approved "on a case-by-case basis" means that each pilot (through his/her Aviation Medical Examiner) must obtain specific approval from the FAA Aeromedical Certification branch.
Example: Until about about 30 years ago, taking any kind of medication for high blood pressure usually disqualified a pilot for all flying activities. FAA policy is considerably more enlightened now, and a pilot who begins taking BP medication can usually resume flying after six months or so. (The new rationale: Which is more hazardous ... a pilot with high blood pressure that is monitored by a doctor and well controlled with medication, or a pilot with high blood pressure who avoids FAA scrutiny by not treating it at all?) That said, the FAA limits for blood pressure are still more stringent than customary medical practice.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-25-2014).]
If it was taken they have had a long ass time to now fly over or submarine and plant a fake debris field complete with some bodies and seats. If I was to do it that would be my first step as to draw attention away from places it could be. In the time they waist looking for it I would be painting it and prepping it for the specific mission I had at hand. During WW2 subs would shoot contents out the torpedo tubes to make it look like they were hit to get away.
In most cases...if you attempt a water landing, you do it with landing gear and flaps up. You dont want anything to hit the water before the fuselage or it will 'submarine' or flip, breaking apart. Airliners with the engines hanging down below the wings, and even fuselage are very susceptible to that. The Hudson River landing if you noted, the pilot set the tail down first to add drag and reduce speed quickly. Anyone with a boat knows how fast a boat can stop if you cut power and the stern dips into the water deeper. I know my own boat could stop fast enough to get swamped by my own wake at the rear. If there was any failure on the aircraft short of a massive structural failure, which we know didnt happen because it flew for 6+ more hours, they were almost in sight of land from their cruising altitude. They had control because it turned toward land west of it. Even with a lousy glide ratio and NO power, you can go quite a distance from 30,000 feet. They would have been able to at least crash land close to shore if not over land. My Cessna will glide 20 miles from a much lower altitude.
I fully believe they were under power and control the whole time and flew down low to evade any detection in order to get the plane to some destination. Pilots on their own oxygen system could easily put all the passengers out as low as 10,000 feet. I think it will turn up sooner or later. They could even fly below/above and at the rear of another airliner and pretty much escape being seen on radar until they arrived at some 'target'. It certainly wouldnt be seen by anyone in the plane they follow. When I did formation flying, there are tons of blind spots, even with a bubble canopy, and you had to constantly tell others exactly where you were to avoid a collision. There are lots of mid-air collisons on perfectly clear days where 2 pilots simply cannot see each other. One that comes to memory was a small plane that was hit by a 727 years ago over California, killing all on board both planes. They never saw each other.
Clues to where it went down: Analysis of Inmarsat satellite signals, Doppler shifting of satellite "pings" from airliner are evidence for the southern trajectory, leading to the current search area in the southern Indian Ocean
Last week Inmarsat assured us that the aircraft moved steadily away from the equator as it pinged the satellite each hour. Since it was 650 miles North of the equator at the time it left radar coverage, how does it get South of the equator without ever getting closer to it?
Last week Inmarsat assured us that the aircraft moved steadily away from the equator as it pinged the satellite each hour. Since it was 650 miles North of the equator at the time it left radar coverage, how does it get South of the equator without ever getting closer to it?
The article says:
quote
That rate of movement, forward and back, was reflected in the pings' Doppler shift: first a slight rise in frequency, and then a fall. "They were able to tell by looking at the frequency of the signal that it was getting closer to the satellite, but then after a certain point, it's moving away," Zweck said.
That suggested that the plane took the southern route. If it had gone north, the Doppler data would have shown that the plane was consistently farther away from the satellite.
The forward-and-back Doppler shift was so subtle that Inmarsat's analysts had to double-check it by comparing data from other 777 jets that traveled similar routes. They also checked the data that the Malaysian jet sent back before it disappeared. "It all agreed," Zweck said.
Of course the plane could have made a U-turn at the equator too.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 03-25-2014).]
Which, is why the question was asked-Inmarset had previously stated the plane (according to it's pings) was moving away from the equator as it traveled.
The latest conspiracy theory is that "Persons Unknown", have created a fake debris field in a remote area of the Indian Ocean to explain the disappearance.
I like this one too. (are people really this dumb?)
Do the Math • 5 hours ago FACT #1; The plane cannot be located. FACT #2: Both pilots had dubious political connections. FACT#3: There were now seven passengers with stolen passports on board. FACT #4: The pilots' cabin was sealed and could not be forcibly opened by a passenger FACT #5: Some one had said to ATC in Malaysia, "All right ... Good Night." FACT #6: One of the pilots was accompanied by a three legged dog who had an uncanny ability to mimic the human voice. FACT #7: The three legged dog had been trained to say, "All right ... Good Night." FACT #8: None of the passengers had attempted to make a cell phone call. FACT #9: The passengers could have access to 15 minutes of oxygen, if the passenger cabin had been depressurized. FACT #10: Whereas a human can only survive 15 minutes on oxygen supplied by the aircraft, a dog could survive 6 hours on the same oxygen. FACT#11: A three legged dog would require less oxygen than a normal dog. FACT#12: The flight menu would have observed Moslem diet standards so that no pork would have been served.
The latest conspiracy theory is that "Persons Unknown", have created a fake debris field in a remote area of the Indian Ocean to explain the disappearance.
I like this one too. (are people really this dumb?) FACT #6: One of the pilots was accompanied by a three legged dog who had an uncanny ability to mimic the human voice. FACT #7: The three legged dog had been trained to say, "All right ... Good Night."
Pilot suicide from what a friend said in this article, his wife left him.
Article
'It was his last joyride': MH370 pilot was upset over wife moving out and in 'no state of mind to be flying', reveals his long-time friend MH370 pilot devastated by his marriage breakdown
A close friend said Captain Zaharie was in 'no state of mind to be flying' He warns Zaharie could have taken MH370 on a 'last joyride' and that the crew wouldn't have known something was wrong 'until it was too late’
It follows reports the doomed flight climbed to 43,000ft moments before disappearing from radar It stayed at that altitude for 23 minutes, but oxygen would have run out after just 12 minutes, rendering passengers and crew unconscious
Expert says plane would have flown on until it ran out of fuel The news comes as authorities continue their efforts to locate debris
While families of victims of MH370 are expected to start arriving in Perth as soon as the debris is confirmed as belonging to the plane
The Australian Prime Minister warned the search can't go on indefinitely
By Andrew Chesterton and Richard Shears and Nathan Klein and Ted Thornhill
PUBLISHED: 17:26 EST, 25 March 2014 | UPDATED: 05:24 EST, 26 March 2014
A thought of interest. I am sure you have seen the displays of outrage by relatives of the flights passengers. I had thought they were awful impatient (at the beginning) and overly aggressive in condemnation of information being released. My friend pointed out that most of the passengers were Chinese. That they are only allowed one kid. Also, a friend of my wife just got back from China (vacation). She was trying and trying to get on facebook. She did not know that it is unpossible to do that in China. The wife and I were discussing the fact that the Chinese are only allowed one kid. Her co-worker told her that people may violate the childbirth ban, but that they had to assume all responsibility for any additional children. That the kids are not even allowed a name, as in they do not officially exist. Throughout life. That they would never be eligible for any "communistic benefits (?)". That they would be people without a nationality.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-26-2014).]
Wall Street Journal has a report with video and some graphics about how Inmarsat analyzed the satellite "pings" using Doppler analysis to make their estimate of where the plane went down.
(are people really this dumb?)
