777 down

[HHI944]

Originally Posted by lane912

breaking news!!!!------

reports are coming into the CNN news center that most men fart on their partners when sleeping---

What if it's 2 guys sleeping back to back and they fart at the same time? I bet it would go nucular.....maybe that's how they're planning to use the 777 to blow us up...

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

im well aware there are missing nuclear weapons.

what im wondering, its after being assured dozens of times by folks that the plane was landed safely and was being converted to carry a nuke for a terrorist attack.

so .... where is the attack?

People have put forth many different scenarios about how the plane could be used for a terrorist attack somewhere if it didn't crash, and delivering a nuke is just one of them. Others involve a dirty bomb, nerve gas, bioweapon, or just crashing it into a building or city, 9/11 style.

I heard an interview with James Sanders, author of "The Downing of TWA Flight 800" recently, and he said that if it isn't found on the ocean floor or crashed on land somewhere in the next couple of weeks, a lot of countries' air defense systems will be on high alert on May 11 because that's the three year anniversary of the death of OBL.

[flipper35]

I was reading the blog on Flyingmag.com about the conversations at Sun n Fun and one of the theories from CNN was that a 777 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel. Do other aircraft NOT have this problem?

Why We're Still Talking about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 | Flying Magazine

[rick-l]

Originally Posted by flipper35

I was reading the blog on Flyingmag.com about the conversations at Sun n Fun and one of the theories from CNN was that a 777 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel. Do other aircraft NOT have this problem?

My Cessna 172 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel.

[flipper35]

Someone should inform CNN, that's dangerous.

Anything I have flown would have trouble maintaining altitude as well seeing that I am not glider certified and have never been in one, but those come down when the "fuel" runs out eventually.

[J1NX3D]

We have a sole RNZAF P3K2 as part of the fleet of search aircraft. It started its search in Malaysia but moved to the southern corridor based out of RAAF Base Pearce. The flying has been intense and the demand of fuel is putting strain on Pearce to keep up.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by rick-l

My Cessna 172 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel.

You should get that checked.

[cashflyer]

I'm rather astonished that the government FAA allows bloated businesses like Boeing to put passengers at risk by designing a plane so poorly that it struggles to maintain altitude once the fuel tanks are empty.


Why is it acceptable for Boeing to cut corners like this at the risk of peoples lives? Is it so that they can continue to keep paying Union pensions? Or is it just to keep lining the pockets of fat cat executives and to keep the lobbyist payroll flowing?

We should all DEMAND that this sort of bull**** not be allowed!! Hundreds of Malaysians have payed the ultimate price to bring this to light - do not let their sacrifice be for nothing!

[ossiblue]

While the humor regarding the CNN statement about maintaining altitude is welcome, we need to be fair to CNN.

They did not say a 777 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel. What was actually stated in the crawl under the video is, the 777 will struggle to maintain altitude once fuel tanks are empty, which was in the context of the discussion between the simulator pilot and the reporter, and related to the flight controls and aerial stability of the aircraft, once fuel had been expended. IIRC, the statement came in response to a question by the reporter as to how the plane will behave once the fuel runs out.

Taken together, the discussion in the simulator and the crawl make sense and don't really reflect the empty headed comment that "a 777 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel." A bit of levity is fine, IMO, and CNN makes some bone head comments. I just don't think this is one of them. Now, if another reporter or another crawl misquoted the original discussion, then...CNN, you deserve all the sarcasm that's dished out.

OBTW, the simulator pilot, shown above, was recently fired by the company. Apparently, his casual dress while appearing on national TV did not sit well with the company head. That, along with other "incidents", has led to his termination.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

They did not say a 777 has trouble maintaining altitude with no fuel. What was actually stated in the crawl under the video is, the 777 will struggle to maintain altitude once fuel tanks are empty, which was in the context of the discussion between the simulator pilot and the reporter, and related to the flight controls and aerial stability of the aircraft, once fuel had been expended. IIRC, the statement came in response to a question by the reporter as to how the plane will behave once the fuel runs out.

Are you saying the reporter asked how well a 777 glides?
Because "tanks are empty" , "out of fuel" & "fuel expended" all mean the same thing: that the engines stop turning and the 777 is a glider that will not maintain altitude no matter how much it or its pilots struggle.

[VaSteve]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

OBTW, the simulator pilot, shown above, was recently fired by the company. Apparently, his casual dress while appearing on national TV did not sit well with the company head. That, along with other "incidents", has led to his termination.

It bothered me that they never wore a pilot's uniform. Some simulation.

[GH85Carrera]

The uniform is only to make the passengers feel better. The pilot could be in flip flops and a speedo with no shirt and still fly the airplane. I would rather have Capt. Sullenberg in shorts than the Korean pilots that crashed in SF in a perfect uniform.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

Are you saying the reporter asked how well a 777 glides?
Because "tanks are empty" , "out of fuel" & "fuel expended" all mean the same thing: that the engines stop turning and the 777 is a glider that will not maintain altitude no matter how much it or its pilots struggle.

The reporter didn't ask how well a 777 glides, directly. He asked what will the plane do when the engines first stop from lack of fuel. Yes, the plane would be in a glide, but he wanted to know the physical reaction of the plane in the moments immediately following the loss of power. This is when the simulator pilot mentioned the plane, due to its design and if the autopilot was engaged, would "struggle" to maintain altitude with subtle maneuvers--all futile, of course. No one ever claimed or even alluded to the ability of the plane to actually maintain altitude. In short, the reporter wanted to know if the plane would immediately turn nose down and head for the ground.

[stuartj]

Some one in the control room taking the piss. Funny.

[flipper35]

So what you are saying is that the aircraft will struggle to maintain altitude when the engines spool down. Got it. In that context, I need to retract my earlier statement. None of the planes I have flown will struggle to maintain altitude when the tanks run dry, they will gladly give it up.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by flipper35

So what you are saying is that the aircraft will struggle to maintain altitude when the engines spool down. Got it. In that context, I need to retract my earlier statement. None of the planes I have flown will struggle to maintain altitude when the tanks run dry, they will gladly give it up.

Yea, gravity works 100% of the time. No exceptions. I guess if there was a large updraft they might stay up a little longer, but gravity will win in the end.

There many Navy ships on the ocean floor but no Air Force anywhere has ever had any aircraft stuck "up there"

I keep checking this thread wanting to see the news that something was found.

It is so sad for the families and loved ones of the passengers and crew.

[flipper35]

Only the take off is optional.

[cgarr]

Maybe they turned south because they were out of fuel. down hill is better than up hill?

[wdfifteen]

ossi is right. I watched the CNN report. In the context I understood when the guy said the "plane" he was talking about the autopilot and when he said "struggle" he meant "try." It was typical news report hyperbole, but if you watch the news you understand they overstate everything.
What was the alternative? You ascend, you descend, or you try to maintain altitude. In context it was clear that of the alternatives, they were saying the autopilot tried to maintain altitude. What programming would you suggest, "If the engines go dead, immediately dive to your death?"

[calimedeiros]

I've been following this dinse it began its sad and still bothering me how tracking devises can just be turned off
The other part that bothers me is this plane flew for another 5 to 7 hours would they not try and track it right away and send jets to look for it ? If it did crash in the ocean the debris would have prob been seen right away

I guess these countries also don't have the best radar

The most frustrating thing to watch is how they handled the families and investigation
I wanna punch that prime minister and his secretary of transportation
First they send text to families then they say (all life is lost ) then (there's still hope it may have landed )
They should just shut the f up and not say anything if their gonna keep saying stupid **** without one single piece of debris

It's gonna take a long long time to find this plane
I just hope they don't give up trying due to money money who's gonna pay stuff