Malaysia Airlines 'loses contact with plane' (and search effort updates)

[spenser.d]

It isn't.

 

Yes, it is. You don't just magic a couple hundred people into the air. The physics may be straightforward, but that doesn't make accomplishing the actual feat less complex.

[FloatingFatMan]

Pilot suicide is exactly what I believe happened, and is the simplest explanation by far. You don't seem to understand aircraft systems. There is so much redundancy, and so much training, that a failure causing this would have been indicated by now. The very fact that there is no indication of failure is strong evidence against a malfunction. And there are no systems failures that I can see that could have disabled the aircraft in the way we know it did (timing for the different comms systems, tracking of the aircraft after these systems were lost). I initially thought it may have been an avionics fire, until the tracking proved otherwise. There are too many problems with the idea that this may have been a malfunction. However, pilot suicide? The captain had marital problems and was going through a stressful time, there is precedent for pilot suicide taking down an airliner and it can be used to explain all of the events, which an accident simply cannot do.

 

It's not impossible, but I don't think it's the simplest explanation, personally.

 

At the end of the day, we'll probably never know.

[bonalste]

Yes, it is. You don't just magic a couple hundred people into the air. The physics may be straightforward, but that doesn't make accomplishing the actual feat less complex.

Well let's see now, you are commenting that I talk as if it is simple. Therefore, based on that fact, and what I have said in this thread, it is simple. Now, do I think that engineering the materials used, creating the electronic and hydraulic systems, creating an airline operation, are simple things? Obviously I don't. However, when looking at this case, it is fairly simple to understand what is and what is not the most likely scenario. The aircraft malfunctioning is simply too difficult a scenario to satisfy, as floatingman spoke of, Occams Razor.

However, if talking about flying an aircraft and understanding how it works, what techniques are used, the effects of failed systems during an emergency situation? Yes, it is simple.

[bonalste]

It's not impossible, but I don't think it's the simplest explanation, personally.

At the end of the day, we'll probably never know.

Fair enough. Can I ask what kind of failure you believe could have caused this? Because I can't think of any. But as we all have no actual idea whatsoever about what occurred, just best-guesses and heresay, coupled with misinformation and half-truths, I think it's fair to say that arguing it seems silly. I hope you're wrong, by the way. I hope we do find out what happened. Because, if you are right and it was a system malfunction, it would mean some serious repercussions along the lines of the Air France crash, that we would absolutely need to face.

[FloatingFatMan]

I'm leaning towards a fire in the avionics bay, where all the comms and flight equipment is. It's the most sensitive area of the aircraft the the mostly likely site to affect so much.  It's not impossible that it fried the comms, life support, and guidance systems, depressurizing the craft and sending it wildly off course until it eventually went down somewhere.

 

If it's in the Indian ocean, I don't think they'll find it for many years, if ever. Most of that is just too deep, we can't get down there.

[bonalste]

I'm leaning towards a fire in the avionics bay, where all the comms and flight equipment is. It's the most sensitive area of the aircraft the the mostly likely site to affect so much. It's not impossible that it fried the comms, life support, and guidance systems, depressurizing the craft and sending it wildly off course until it eventually went down somewhere.

If it's in the Indian ocean, I don't think they'll find it for many years, if ever. Most of that is just too deep, we can't get down there.

But then there's the question of why the pilots didn't land at a diversion airport, or why the aircraft would carry on flying for 30 minutes then make a dramatic left turn south. There is no reason an avionics fire would cause this. Knock out the comms, yes. Cause a depressurisation, no. Cause the aircraft to change course, no. Initially I thought avionics fire, but that was when all we knew was that the MCDU turned off then the comms turned off. With information about the flight path, and a total lack of wreckage, an avionics fire just doesn't explain it.

[Hum]

'Most promising lead' tossed out

 

The four acoustic pings at the center of the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 for the past seven weeks are no longer believed to have come from the plane's black boxes, a U.S. Navy official told CNN.

The acknowledgment came Wednesday as searchers wrapped up the first phase of their effort, having scanned 329 square miles of southern Indian Ocean floor without finding any wreckage from the Boeing 777-200.

Authorities now almost universally believe the pings did not come from the onboard data or cockpit voice recorders, but instead came from some other man-made source unrelated to the jetliner that disappeared on March 8, according to Michael Dean, the Navy's deputy director of ocean engineering.

If the pings had come from the recorders, searchers would have found them, he said.

Dean said "yes" when asked if other countries involved in the search had reached the same conclusions.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-pinging/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[2xSilverKnight]

'Most promising lead' tossed out

 

The four acoustic pings at the center of the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 for the past seven weeks are no longer believed to have come from the plane's black boxes, a U.S. Navy official told CNN

 

I knew it. The perfect diversion. Controlling the narrative at it's best.  :rolleyes: 

[Crimson Rain]

'Most promising lead' tossed out

 

The four acoustic pings at the center of the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 for the past seven weeks are no longer believed to have come from the plane's black boxes, a U.S. Navy official told CNN.

The acknowledgment came Wednesday as searchers wrapped up the first phase of their effort, having scanned 329 square miles of southern Indian Ocean floor without finding any wreckage from the Boeing 777-200.

Authorities now almost universally believe the pings did not come from the onboard data or cockpit voice recorders, but instead came from some other man-made source unrelated to the jetliner that disappeared on March 8, according to Michael Dean, the Navy's deputy director of ocean engineering.

If the pings had come from the recorders, searchers would have found them, he said.

Dean said "yes" when asked if other countries involved in the search had reached the same conclusions.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-pinging/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

IF this is a cover up and

IF the ones doing it are big countries

it is easy to fake some pings using some submarine covertly and then leave.

 

This ensures the search party finds nothing but wastes weeks if not months.

[Richteralan]

'Most promising lead' tossed out

The four acoustic pings at the center of the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 for the past seven weeks are no longer believed to have come from the plane's black boxes, a U.S. Navy official told CNN.

The acknowledgment came Wednesday as searchers wrapped up the first phase of their effort, having scanned 329 square miles of southern Indian Ocean floor without finding any wreckage from the Boeing 777-200.

Authorities now almost universally believe the pings did not come from the onboard data or cockpit voice recorders, but instead came from some other man-made source unrelated to the jetliner that disappeared on March 8, according to Michael Dean, the Navy's deputy director of ocean engineering.

If the pings had come from the recorders, searchers would have found them, he said.

Dean said "yes" when asked if other countries involved in the search had reached the same conclusions.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-pinging/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Meh....wonder what's next. O wait most people forgot about this already.

[CrashG]

so after all this time we know as much as we did months ago. Plane took off didn't land where it should've when it should've

[Hum]

So Inmarsat data is wrong ... the jet could have gone North and landed ... ?

[bonalste]

So Inmarsat data is wrong ... the jet could have gone North and landed ... ?

As far as we know, the Inmarsat data is correct. Of course now that there is no more black box locator transmission, I'm not sure what methods can now be used to locate it. It's a very sad development.

[Nashy]

So first weeks of searching when Malaysia were doing everything wrong could come back to bite them.  Very sad for the families involved.

[Richteralan]

So first weeks of searching when Malaysia were doing everything wrong could come back to bite them.  Very sad for the families involved.

I don't think anything will come back to bite them, because most people still believe this is just a simple naive accident, right? I bet the plane didn't crash into Indian Ocean. If it did, some debris should be washed ashore by now.

 

[Nashy]

I don't think anything will come back to bite them, because most people still believe this is just a simple naive accident, right? I bet the plane didn't crash into Indian Ocean. If it did, some debris should be washed ashore by now.

 

 

For the record, I don't believe this is an accident.  But I'm not prepared to state it as fact.  I only base it on my knowledge and love for commercial aviation.  I'm certainly no expert.

Basing your opinion on no wreckage is flawed.  If the pilot was indeed in control, there is every chance it was successfully ditched into ocean, and sunk.  US1549 is a good example of a recent well documented ditch.  Pilots train to ditch in the ocean.

[bonalste]

Pilots train to ditch in the ocean.

No they don't.

Also, big difference between landing in a benign river and landing on an ocean.

[Richteralan]

For the record, I don't believe this is an accident. But I'm not prepared to state it as fact. I only base it on my knowledge and love for commercial aviation. I'm certainly no expert.

Basing your opinion on no wreckage is flawed. If the pilot was indeed in control, there is every chance it was successfully ditched into ocean, and sunk. US1549 is a good example of a recent well documented ditch. Pilots train to ditch in the ocean.

You say my opinion is flawed, and yet you can't cite anything to back up your claim.

Do you know that FAA does not require commercial pilot train to ditch. So how can you be sure the pilot on MH370 is trained to ditch?

Also, since when Hudson river in anyway similar to Indian Ocean?

[FloatingFatMan]

You say my opinion is flawed, and yet you can't cite anything to back up your claim.

Do you know that FAA does not require commercial pilot train to ditch. So how can you be sure the pilot on MH370 is trained to ditch?

Also, since when Hudson river in anyway similar to Indian Ocean?

 

I'm curious.. What does the FAA have to do with a Malaysian pilot?

[Richteralan]

I'm curious.. What does the FAA have to do with a Malaysian pilot?

That is an example that commercial pilots are not required to train to ditch.

[FloatingFatMan]

That is an example that commercial pilots are not required to train to ditch.

 

Perhaps they should be...

[Richteralan]

Perhaps they should be...

Well, that's off topic, right?

[FloatingFatMan]

Well, that's off topic, right?

 

Well, if we're discussing just the missing plane, yes.  If we're discussing ways to stop this sort of thing happening in the future (a natural progression of the conversion IMO), not so much...

[bonalste]

Perhaps they should be...

Too many variables for too little likelihood of it being necessary. The time it would take to keep a pilot current in terms of ditching practise would be better spent practising fire handling, landing gear failures and engine failure during take-off. We are aware of the ditching procedure and I have studied it in my own time (which the pilots who landed on the Hudson River should have done but the First Officer messed it up) but beyond that, it would be a waste of time and money.

[Nashy]

You say my opinion is flawed, and yet you can't cite anything to back up your claim.

Do you know that FAA does not require commercial pilot train to ditch. So how can you be sure the pilot on MH370 is trained to ditch?

Also, since when Hudson river in anyway similar to Indian Ocean?

 

FSS is American.  And after further research, I certainly could have been incorrect.  However, to think that pilots don't know how to ditch, would be a little silly.

What I don't get, people seem to think that the Indian ocean is never calm.  Just because the Hudson is a river, doesn't mean it can't have ditched in the ocean.  There is a very high possibility that it did ditch, and it's more than possible that it could have been a successful ditching.  What I'm saying is that stating there is no wreckage, and saying that's why it hasn't crashed is wrong.  I'm putting forward a scenario that is a real possibility as to why there may be no wreckage.