777 down

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by jyl

A different theory. Fire, possibly electrical; attempted diversion to a different airfield to west; comm systems rapidly fail due to fire or are shut down during suppression efforts; pilots soon succumb to smoke; passengers too; plane continues on westerly course until fuel expended.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13cv1gohsmbv5jmy221vrfyiz3vdhbop04

My immediate impression is that this person (ex-pilot) is trying to find a scenario in which the pilots were innocent. It doesn't explain no cellphone calls or some reported course information. The hypothesized fire is required to extinguish itself?

People need to drop the cell phone ringing and "why no one used their cell phones" ideas. Early on, the explanation for the "ringing" was explained--it is often the sound a caller receives while the cell carrier tries to locate the phone. It is not the sound of the actual phone ringing. This is old information.

As far as passengers using their cell phones, there are several reasons. First, the plane did not have wifi available. Second, a plane at 35K feet, flying at 600mph, is out of the range of cell towers (and the tower signal is focused downward though it does extend in all directions), assuming they are around, and flying too fast to connect even if they can find a signal. Third, they are in an area where the cell towers do not exist--over the open ocean. Closer to land, assuming the northern course, they are in an area where little cell service is located. Finally, if the theory of eliminating the passengers is true (hypoxia), then there would be no one alive to try and call.

Lack of cell phone calls from the plane is non-issue, IMO.

Reading the pilot's article does make sense given the "new" information that the ACARS system and the transponder may have been turned off together rather than one before the other, as originally reported. A program into the auto pilot for the left turn, pilots overcome, plane flies on last programmed course until fuel is gone. Possible.

[Holger]

But then it would be very "easy" to find.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Holger

But then it would be very "easy" to find.

How so?

Last I heard, the left turn was programmed into the on board computer. No information as to if a destination was indicated. Plane flying on autopilot for seven hours in an unknown direction would not be easily found. Last "ping" put it in the arcs that cover a huge area.

[Holger]

Ah, I thought the direction after the turn was known. It always looked like that on the graphics. And I also thought the turn was registered and the contact was lost after the turn. Otherwise: how do we know it turned?!

[quattrorunner]

Originally Posted by Holger

Ah, I thought the direction after the turn was known. It always looked like that on the graphics. And I also thought the turn was registered and the contact was lost after the turn. Otherwise: how do we know it turned?!

But then there is the radar thing still. Why was it invisible?

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Holger

Ah, I thought the direction after the turn was known. It always looked like that on the graphics. And I also thought the turn was registered and the contact was lost after the turn. Otherwise: how do we know it turned?!

We can only surmise based on information given and that information is constantly being changed. Based on the latest, "authorities" know the turn was entered into the computer and the turn happened after the transponder was shut off. How they can be sure, I don't know. I'm only saying the theory posed by the article is possible.

Originally Posted by quattrorunner

But then there is the radar thing still. Why was it invisible?

Two types of radar. The plane became invisible to civilian radar, the ATC, once the transponder was turned off. Military radar or primary radar "sees" objects by reflecting a beam off of it. The plane apparently was still visible to the military radar as it flew westward over Malaysia.

The linked article appears possible and is less complex than many other theories out there. One problem I have with it, however, is if a fire started the whole sequence, it would have been automatically reported by the ACARS system immediately, not just at the 30 minute scheduled reporting time. To make the theory work, the ACARS would have to be the first casualty of the incident.

[cashflyer]

Here is the primary ATC radar coverage in that area:

[MikeSid]

Perhaps someone could clarify my thoughts on one of the recent theories.

I understand that the transponder and whatever information radar sees could be changed. In other words, I think I understand that if this plane were on the ground somewhere, someone could be changing it's "signature" such that it would look like an ordinary commercial flight and would not arouse suspicion.

This line of thinking has been expanded to postulate that bad guys could fly a plane to a large metropolitan area and do bad things relatively undetected - at least until it was too late.

But correct me if I am wrong here, I just can't see this unique airplane ever getting back into the air without at least a couple of bells and whistles going off. As I understand it, the engine data that gets automatically sent to Rolls Royce or GE or whomever, is unique to the engines on this particular plane. If those engines fired up, we'd know about it in short order, right? Is there a way to disable that feature?? This would seem to eliminate any fear that the plane could be used in any way without the bad guys basically virtually dropping their pants.

[Head416]

Now that they read about the engine diagnostics in all these articles, I'm sure they could figure out a way to disable it.

[quattrorunner]

If military radar tracked it, where is it?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by quattrorunner

If military radar tracked it, where is it?

As far as is publicly known, only Malaysian military is saying they saw anything on radar, somewhere around the time that it was crossing over Malaysia going west. The contact wasn't identified as the plane, or recognized as significant at the time, it appears.

Other countries have not said they detected the plane on their military radar. It may not have come within their radar coverage, or their military radar may not be that effective.

If the plane was far out to sea in the Indian ocean, not flying toward a coastline or a militarily sensitive area or a major naval vessel, or was flying low, my impression (only that) is that it is reasonably possible it wasn't detected. It also seems to me that another country's military might have limited incentive to disclose their radar capabilities, or the inadequacies of same, merely to help find a civilian plane from another country.

We (meaning layfolk like me) have certain impressions about the capabilities of US military air defenses, which may considerably overstate the realities of other countries' defenses.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by jyl

As far as is publicly known, only Malaysian military is saying they saw anything on radar, somewhere around the time that it was crossing over Malaysia going west. The contact wasn't identified as the plane, or recognized as significant at the time, it appears.

Other countries have not said they detected the plane on their military radar. It may not have come within their radar coverage, or their military radar may not be that effective.

If the plane was far out to sea in the Indian ocean, not flying toward a coastline or a militarily sensitive area or a major naval vessel, or was flying low, my impression (only that) is that it is reasonably possible it wasn't detected. It also seems to me that another country's military might have limited incentive to disclose their radar capabilities, or the inadequacies of same, merely to help find a civilian plane from another country.

We (meaning layfolk like me) have certain impressions about the capabilities of US military air defenses, which may considerably overstate the realities of other countries' defenses.

1. flying low means increased fuel consumption = less range

2. the US navy has assets in the Indian ocean, i highly doubt every one of them would have there radars off, so there is a good chance we could have picked it up if it went that way.

however, there is more then a few arguments for us not telling anyone we saw it, a. maybe that asset was doing something not particularly clean, and we want to keep it quiet, or b. we don't want to tell everyone ho good our radar is.

[VaSteve]

Essential reading:

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

[atcjorg]

I wonder if the military radar data is recorded, I think it unlikely that a radar operator after 1 am is very alert and if they weren't alerted to be looking for something I think it quite possible it just passed unnoticed.

[gacook]

Originally Posted by atcjorg

I wonder if the military radar data is recorded, I think it unlikely that a radar operator after 1 am is very alert and if they weren't alerted to be looking for something I think it quite possible it just passed unnoticed.

Why would one be less alert at 1am? Typically, we work in shifts. Guys who work nights sleep during the day. Their circadian clock adjusts and 1am is pretty much the middle of his "day." When I was living in the Middle East, I worked nights. I actually prefer working nights; I'm tired all day long and "wake up" at night. Just the way I've always been.

[Sunroof]

Makes perfectly good sense, but what is the history of the Boeing 777 in similar conditions (outdoor heat, weight, tire condition, etc) that resulted in a fire that incapacitated this aircraft? Never, I believe. The 777 has flown tens of thousands of flights under every imaginable condition. Would'nt the crew have enough time to declare an emergency? Certainly, both pilot and co-pilot instinct would be to get to the fire, but also alert those of the planes condition. Playing devils advocate here, it took time for the cockpit to fill with smoke if this burning tire scenario were correct. But, its also palusible that the crew while changing course had enough time alert the ground.

[gordner]

There is a first for every event, just because it has not happened before does not mean it could not have happened now.

[ckelly78z]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

1. flying low means increased fuel consumption = less range

2. the US navy has assets in the Indian ocean, i highly doubt every one of them would have there radars off, so there is a good chance we could have picked it up if it went that way.

however, there is more then a few arguments for us not telling anyone we saw it, a. maybe that asset was doing something not particularly clean, and we want to keep it quiet, or b. we don't want to tell everyone ho good our radar is.

That's just great, half of the countries around the dissapearence saw nothing because of their inadequate radars, but refuse to say either that they did or didn't see anything for fear of other countries possibly using that information. The Americans may have seen something, but refuse to say one way or another for fear of letting the world know it's capabilities.

Obviously, nothing is going to be accomplished if we can't work together.

[rick-l]

Does it bother anyone that the flight crew can kill everyone on the airplane just by flipping a switch?

[enzo1]

Originally Posted by rick-l

does it bother anyone that the flight crew can kill everyone on the airplane just by flipping a switch?

+1