MH370 - Call for Search & Rescue Help

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › MH370 - Call for Search & Rescue Help

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 54

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1006219 15-Mar-2014 14:35

tdgeek:
Fred99:
Sideface:
mattwnz: ... I Wold be a fantastic story, and great movie, if the plane was found to have landed somewhere, on some small island. ...

The Boeing 777-300, at Maximum Landing Weight, needs a runway that is 8,100 ft long.

What do you reckon the chances are of a successful ditching of a 777 at sea?
It can and has been achieved with smaller jet aircraft - in emergency situations where the pilots have had to contend with loss of engine power - with a need to act with urgency.

The jet landed in New York ok and years ago a hijacked plane landed in the shallows at an island but the wing caught the sea and it broke up, many survived . Very do able

So if that was the plan, where would he have done this? (and why - what would come next?)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1006225 15-Mar-2014 14:41

Sideface:
Fred99: What do you reckon the chances are of a successful ditching of a 777 at sea? ...

See: http://www.askcaptainlim.com/ditching-flying-81/389-can-a-boeing-777-ditch-safely.html

"A Boeing 777 is designed to be capable of ditching safely on the water and stay afloat. That is why there are 8 slide rafts in the aircraft capable of accommodating more than 300 passengers in the event of a safe ditching on the sea..

I read that the rafts are equipped with EPIRB. Not sure if they are self-actuating (ie when they are deployed - or with water immersion). Perhaps the rafts can be deployed, and the EPIRBs don't fire up until the slides are released from the fuselage - so the EPIRBs can be removed - or deliberately disabled.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1006239 15-Mar-2014 15:16

I just watched a sky UK story about this mystery, and apparently the plane went missing inside a 10 minute window, between switching between the two different air control monitoring countries. They don't allow planes to fly un monitored for more than 10 minutes, and the plane had just signed off from old station and was due to contact the new one, but they never made contact This sounds very odd, and almost makes it sound like it was planned to go missing at that particular time. Not unless there was an error at one of those monitoring stations and it was allowed to go unchecked for longer than 10 minutes, but they haven't admitted to that. Also if the plane dropped it's height enough, it would be able to fly under the radar height, which means it could have gone literally anywhere, although the pings of the plane show it was airborne for around t hours after it went missing. The odds I think of the plane suffering failure within that 10 minute window would be almost zero, and doesn't explain why it was still detected as flying 5 hours later.
If it has crashed, it should have crashed at sea, which means that at some stage there will be foam seats washing up on beaches in the coming weeks and months.
More investigations into the people onboard I think will hold the key on this one.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#1006241 15-Mar-2014 15:19

tdgeek:
I agree, it must be elsewhere, and if so, and if no comms, seems to indicate a planned intervention, hijacking or pilot suicide

I don't agree that it indicates planned intervention.

EDIT: Perhaps I should explain further.

If it was hijacking then there has to be a motive, either terrorism, blackmail/ransom demand, or theft.

For terrorism to be the case there has to be someone claiming responsibility otherwise there is no point, there is no terror created.

For blackmail/ransom or theft to be that case the aircraft needs to have landed safely somewhere which also means a high level of very discrete co-ordination between a lot of people and a suitable discrete runway. I see this as being highly unlikely.

If it was suicide why would the perpetrator fly on for another 4 to 5 hours before crashing the aircraft?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1006243 15-Mar-2014 15:28

If the reports that the engines ran for 4 hours after 1.07 are correct, it may not necessarily mean the plane was moving, until they disclose throttle settings, thrust fuel used and temperatures etc we wont be much wiser.
You'de think the US would have the decency to release those details to the geekzone forum.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1006245 15-Mar-2014 15:37

joker97: where did they get these "waypoints"?

No idea and I can't find anything official to suggest how.
The best news reports suggest these details come from an inmarsat service provided to Boeing and this of course comes from "unnamed officials familiar with the Us search"
In some ways its slightly ironic that the Malaysian Govt is getting hammered for inconsistency when the western press is refusing to name sources.
I can guess and suggest its last known location, thrust , time and perhaps a compass heading, perhaps air speed indicators and surely some strength/direction of signal from the satellite receiving it.
If you believe twitter it's already landed in the bermuda triangle.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1006246 15-Mar-2014 15:39

Malaysian govt is not hammered for inconsistencies

It is being ridiculed because everyone has something different to say expec except for its prime minister who is missing in action

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#1006247 15-Mar-2014 15:45

Water landings are a lot more difficult that most people appreciate. The Hudson River wouldn't have had the swells and waves that you would get on the open sea, and in that particular landing the pilot's precision was perfect - i.e. 11 degrees nose up.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a modern airliner landed at sea without at least some fatalities.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#1006251 15-Mar-2014 16:09

turnin: If the reports that the engines ran for 4 hours after 1.07 are correct, it may not necessarily mean the plane was moving, until they disclose throttle settings, thrust fuel used and temperatures etc we wont be much wiser.
You'de think the US would have the decency to release those details to the geekzone forum.

What are you trying to say here?

Where was the aircraft all this time with the engines running?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1006252 15-Mar-2014 16:10

alasta: Water landings are a lot more difficult that most people appreciate. The Hudson River wouldn't have had the swells and waves that you would get on the open sea, and in that particular landing the pilot's precision was perfect - i.e. 11 degrees nose up.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a modern airliner landed at sea without at least some fatalities.

The Ethiopian Airlines 767 had completely run out of fuel, no flaps (no hydraulic power), and ditched left wing down because the hijackers were apparently fighting the pilot for control.
The miracle is that anybody at all survived. It hit the water at over 175 knots (I guess stall speed on a passenger jet is about 120 knots?)
If planned, with full engine power available, and with the ability to choose a sheltered place to ditch, perhaps...

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1006255 15-Mar-2014 16:24

Technofreak:
turnin: If the reports that the engines ran for 4 hours after 1.07 are correct, it may not necessarily mean the plane was moving, until they disclose throttle settings, thrust fuel used and temperatures etc we wont be much wiser.
You'de think the US would have the decency to release those details to the geekzone forum.

What are you trying to say here?

Where was the aircraft all this time with the engines running?

answer that and we will all know, Is it not possible for a plane to have its engines running when stationary ? without all the data , nobody knows.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Sideface

9652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15607

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1006256 15-Mar-2014 16:27

Fred99: (I guess stall speed on a passenger jet is about 120 knots?) ...

The landing speed for a 777-300 is 149 knots.

Sideface

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#1006260 15-Mar-2014 16:35

turnin:
Technofreak:
turnin: If the reports that the engines ran for 4 hours after 1.07 are correct, it may not necessarily mean the plane was moving, until they disclose throttle settings, thrust fuel used and temperatures etc we wont be much wiser.
You'de think the US would have the decency to release those details to the geekzone forum.

What are you trying to say here?

Where was the aircraft all this time with the engines running?

answer that and we will all know, Is it not possible for a plane to have its engines running when stationary ? without all the data , nobody knows.

Given:

1: Aircraft stop flying when they are stationary
2: This aircraft was about an hour from land
4: It would have needed a suitable landing place
5: It was night time (landing safely at night is difficult and dangerous without runway lighting etc)

Where/how do you suppose it landed safely and was still able to transmit these signals?

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#1006262 15-Mar-2014 16:37

Sideface:
Fred99: (I guess stall speed on a passenger jet is about 120 knots?) ...

The landing speed for a 777-300 is 149 knots.

Which makes Fred99's guess on the stalling speed about right.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1006272 15-Mar-2014 16:55

Technofreak:
turnin:
Technofreak:
turnin: If the reports that the engines ran for 4 hours after 1.07 are correct, it may not necessarily mean the plane was moving, until they disclose throttle settings, thrust fuel used and temperatures etc we wont be much wiser.
You'de think the US would have the decency to release those details to the geekzone forum.

What are you trying to say here?

Where was the aircraft all this time with the engines running?

answer that and we will all know, Is it not possible for a plane to have its engines running when stationary ? without all the data , nobody knows.

Given:

1: Aircraft stop flying when they are stationary
2: This aircraft was about an hour from land
4: It would have needed a suitable landing place
5: It was night time (landing safely at night is difficult and dangerous without runway lighting etc)

Where/how do you suppose it landed safely and was still able to transmit these signals?

1/Planes can have their engines running when not flying, we see this when they taxi along a runway and potentially after a crash
2/ Possibly even in the water if the engines didn't ingress water, 4hrs might be a stretch but perhaps on land this is possible,
3/
4+5 'suitable' gets stretched in instances like these I'm guessing an adrenalin filled pilot will land a burning plane, if it was buring, where ever he can , we don't know the pilots intentions, some media ( australia channel 7) have suggested the pilot was less than reputable. God knows if their is any truth in it, probably not.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 54