WSJ has changed their story slightly but added a video with reporter
[url] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282?mod=trending_now_1 [/url]
[i]"Corrections & Amplifications
U.S. investigators suspect Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 flew for hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, based on an analysis of signals sent through the plane's satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of onboard systems, according to people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said investigators based their suspicions on signals from monitoring systems embedded in the plane's Rolls-Royce PLC engines and described that process." [/i]
So a completely different story from "people familiar with the details" and "one person briefed on the matter", now that there previous version has been discredited. Yep, I'm convinced.
I also think it's a little unfair to blame the Malaysians for all the conspiracy theories and rumours being published from unofficial sources
I wouldnt underestimate the dodginess of the malaysian government they regularly score highly in business corruption leagues and a Malaysian friend (who is ethnic chinese) is quite disparaging of the government.
So many armchair experts passing their in depth opinions on aircraft accidents and the pilots flying them.
Wonder how many of you are actually airline pilots?
Two, I think, and a few more working in the aircraft industry.
I'm baffled to be honest. So many overlapping systems yet still no answers. This is the ultimate Swiss cheese scenario. Many years of aviation experience both at work and up home yet every scenario we've came up with has a flaw.
those are some big pieces of plane, wing size pieces of plane, therefore they would have had to hit the ocean at relatively low impact for bits that big to be left.
Having smashed, chomped, chewed and exploded a passenger plane into bits small enough to pack into ikea bags.... a lot of a fuselage is pretty flimsy. The bit between the nose and the first passenger door is tough as hell though, just because of the way all the ribs are converging to a point - the result is that bit is probably stronger than its intended or needs to be. If you remember back to images of Lockerbie - that fuselage had popped like a balloon but the cockpit was all in one piece even after landing on solid ground. The wings are also spectacularly tough. The fuselage we chopped up with a set of jaws on a mechanical digger but the wings took semtex and a cocktail of other explosives and quite a few attempts to break up, they are a whole different species of structure than the main body of the plane.
So in incidents like AF447 the wings remained in fairly sizeable chunks
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Of course the satellite images seemingly aren't correct, I also doubt the wings would float
Looks like Boeing are also saying that data suggests the flight was still going for 4hrs after radar contact lost.
How could that be though, presumably to disappear from radar for 4 hours it would have had to have descended to a very low altitude ?
How low would it need to have gone ?
Obviously easy to disappear from radar over a large open ocean where there are gaps in coverage but between two countries where coverage would have been comprehensive ?
according to the Malaysian government, Rolls Royce releseased a statement saying they did not have signals 4hrs after the last contact
and the chinese seismic undersea bump was 90 minutes after last contact
Having smashed, chomped, chewed and exploded a passenger plane into bits small enough to pack into ikea bags....
I'm pretty sure you can fit an entire kitchen in an IKEA bag
US journalists (despite not being pilots) seem to be getting fed some interesting stuff
[url] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/14/us-malaysia-airlines-radar-exclusive-idUSBREA2D0DG20140314 [/url]
I say interesting as in the US has the technology and resources but obviously not the political will to take the lead - bit sad for the relatives
All three sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media and due to the sensitivity of the investigation.
I think that tells you as much as you need to know about that story.
Re the radar returns. I regularly ignore primary radar returns (think ww2 type radar) as there are always many on the screen caused by anything from weather to building site cranes etc. Once the identity of an aircrafts primary return is lost, it is very hard to re identify it unless you are in contact with the pilot. Normally we are using secondary surveillance radar which "speaks" to the plane but if the pilot turns off his transponder, all we have is primary, ie the problems above. If the primary radar coverage between Vietnam and Malaysia is poor, it could be impossible to track the aircraft.
As I said in a post earlier, there is a counter argument to every point raised, which is why we're all scratching our heads at work.
So in incidents like AF447 the wings remained in fairly sizeable chunks
You know you've posted photos of the tail though, right...?
Obviously
[img] 
[/img]
[quote=njee20 ]You know you've posted photos of the [s]tail[/s] vertical stabilizer though, right...?
Where do you work Cobrakai, out of interest ?
njee20 » You know you've posted photos of the [s]tail[/s] vertical [s]stabilizer[/s] stabiliser though, right...?
😉
Washington Post
"A senior administration official from the Indian government said Friday that the search team had targeted its efforts in the waters west of Malaysia based on a series of coordinates given to them by the Malaysian government, but he was not sure what data the Malaysians had that lead them to target those specific areas."
Wrong trousers I work at one of two air traffic control centres. My company has spies everywhere!
Documentary on Sky 1 about it now although so far it's really just going over all the previous (mis)information.
I pretty sure the BBC news just said that it may have flown for a further 4 hours, turned round and perhaps flew back over the peninsula towards some islands?!
WTF?!
Ex Pilot thinks it's some kinda hijack.
Maybe it is just sat on some random island somewhere?!
Perhaps it's becoming a real life lost? We're all actually dreaming this and a polar bear will be along soon!
I'm going with hijacked, landed somewhere, hidden, it will probably be flown into somewhere 9-11 style at some point by total arseholes.
Official conclusion appears to be taht it was hijacked:
Its hijacked but where could they take it and why?
Mind boggling as there would be a demand by now.
Im going with a hijack but something went wrong enroute during its course change I.e a fight broke out.
N.Korea wouldnt do it- its full of Chinese nationals.
Im guessing its on the side of a hill somewhere.
North Korea would be about 4 hours away?Interesting idea..off course then shot down by NK. I bet they have good surface to air missiles?
Unless N. Korea are involved and had the plane safely tucked up under cover of a large hanger before daylight arrived? It's one of very few countries who could easily keep such a thing secret in this day and age. Also from the aircrafts last known position, it could have made its way to N.Korea entirely over the sea outside of any land based radar coverage.
It has seemed fairly clear in my mind after no wreckage was found after a couple of days searching, and the strange way in which the aircraft lost contact that the only possible option was a hijacking. Lack of wreckage or any form of crash site or crash witnesses would suggest that there's a good chance that the aircraft is still in one piece somewhere and that this may have a lot longer to play out than we think.
Malaysian PM has confirmed at press conference that now believed plane continued to fly for several hours
"Mr Razak said the authorities are now trying to trace the plane across two possible "corridors" - north from the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan through to northern Thailand, and south from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean."
from [url] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26591056 [/url]
Quite an eye opener is all this as how apparent modern big brother has failed quite spectacularly. Bet the yanks are feeling somewhat peeved their "know the last time he had a shit" spying kit hasn't come up with anything.
Bet the yanks are feeling somewhat peeved their "know the last time he had a shit" spying kit hasn't come up with anything.
Maybe it has but they're not telling.
Well that's another theory/conspiracy..
Back in my fun days I had a Subaru, it had a tracker. You could not turn it off. In theory you could find it anywhere in Europe. You could actually remove it if you got under the bonnet. Do aeroplanes not have something similar or is that just a bit "low tech"
Do aeroplanes not have something similar or is that just a bit "low tech"
Yes (the transponder), but you can turn it off, as seems to have happened. But I guess the engine monitoring transmissions stay on until the engines are turned off.(?)
Or maybe it was hijacked and flown until it ran out of fuel and crashed, like Ethiopian flight 961 - but with locked and armoured cockpit doors unlikely - i'm guessing that since 9/11 pilots have strict instructions that in the event of a hijack situation they should ignore the hijackers demands and call in the situation, even if passengers lives are threatened.
Or maybe a suicide attempt by one of the pilots like in Egypt air flight 990. Bump off the other pilot, turn the aircraft around, head out over the Indian Ocean for 4hrs before crashing. Passengers and cabin crew may have been blissfully unaware until the end.
Not sure I believe the conspiracy theory that it's landed somewhere. Governments are inept and cannot keep secrets for long. Conspiracy theorists always credit government and government institutions with far more capability for keeping things secret that they deserve.
Yes I know of the transponder. But as you rightly say it can be turned off, WTF. I'd suggest that renders it somewhat useless. I appreciate planes aren't usually pinched by two youths wearing hoodies, but perhaps something near the tail that can't be switched off or got at other than in a bond style fuselage walk might be a little more appropriate!
Been asked before
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080911193807AAi5MGe
The problem is things go wrong, so the pilot must be able to isolate every bit of electrical kit from his seat. it's no good having a transponder that's on all the time if it fails and causes a fire because it can't be isolated. (That's based on what the 'expert' said on the BBC this morning.)
Not allowing it to be turned off seems like a great idea at times like this but a really bad idea when it goes wrong/starts smoking etc.
The transponder doesn't mean the aircraft disappears from radar. All it does is provide information about the aircraft, speed and altitude to the ATC, so even if the transponder is turned off the aircraft can be tracked by radar unless it heads into an area of no radar cover.
Or maybe it was hijacked and flown until it ran out of fuel and crashed
Unlikely - no wreckage spotted anywhere and we're a week in? If it was a catastrophic failure in flight then the wreckage should be somewhere near the last known position.
Don't see why the hijackers would run out of fuel and crash - these people clearly knew what they were doing and if they were going to crash then they would have had a specific objective in mind surely? It seems unlikely the hijackers would have crashed it into a completely remote area - I mean what would be the point if there's no one there to see?
If it had crashed in a random location for whatever reason then there's a good chance that some debris or other evidence would have been found by now. I'd have thought here's not many places in the world that are so remote, including the open sea, that an aircraft of this size could crash and go completely un-noticed for a whole week.
Not sure I believe the conspiracy theory that it's landed somewhere
Why not, a week in and there's zero evidence that the aircraft has crashed?
njee20 » You know you've posted photos of the tail vertical stabilizer though, right...?
No, you're trying too hard to be pedantic and clever. A) stabilizer is the Americanism (as Duffer pointed out, and as is in your own link...) and b) the tail is the type of vertical stabiliser that A330 had. Bit like saying "my bike has Rocket Rons", You've just said "no, it has tyres". Smug pedant fail.
Back OT, it's very weird, but I can't see that it's sat on an island somewhere, just seems too far fetched.
even if the transponder is turned off the aircraft can be tracked by radar unless it heads into an area of no radar cover.
Yes, but loads of junk pops up on radar - very easy to lose one blip among many other blips.
It'd need a pretty long runway to land - not something you can build in secret and keep hidden. Unless, yes, North Korea, but why would they kidnap an airliner flying to their only friend left on the planet?
Well it is possible that the aircraft landed intact and sank without a trace - look at the United A320 that landed in the Hudson river, that sank without a trace. Unlikely I know as the passengers would have got out. I'm not sure they have searched the whole of the open ocean areas that were covered by the range of the aircraft. I think they've been taking guesses at the direction the aircraft was going and focussing their searches. I think there is a huge expanse of ocean to look at and no clues where to start looking. Even with the AF case where the vertical stabiliser and floating luggage was found within a few days, it still took years to find the aircraft. If we didn't have those initial signs floating on the surface of the ocean to pin-point an area, then how long would it have taken to find the AF aircraft? Would it ever have been found?
Its difficult to land a 777 anywhere without someone noticing. Those pesky plane spotters are everywhere.
That's not totally true. Air traffic control radar is called secondary radar and it works by interrogating the transponder so if you turn off the transponder the aircraft will indeed vanish from the radar. Military radar is primary radar and works by detecting the reflected radar energy from the target aircraft so it can detect aircraft without transponders.
It'd need a pretty long runway to land - not something you can build in secret and keep hidden.
I believe that with the right conditions, low speed approach, maximum braking and reverse thrust applied (and depending on how much weight the aircraft is carrying) that a 777 can come to a full stop from the point of touchdown in somewhere between 600m and 900m. That's not a very long runway.
That's not totally true. Air traffic control radar is called secondary radar and it works by interrogating the transponder so if you turn off the transponder the aircraft will indeed vanish from the radar. Military radar is primary radar and works by detecting the reflected radar energy from the target aircraft so it can detect aircraft without transponders.
ATC have both primary and secondary, I think - we've had one on this thread already talking about it.
I've just remembered from the United aircraft crash that aircraft have automated EPIRBs so that they fire up and transmit the aircrafts position if the aircraft ditches in water, so if this aircraft did go down in water it must have been a catastrophic crash for the EPIRBs not to activate. Again, they didn't activate in the AF case.
Most if not all large airports also have primary radars working in conjunction with secondary radar, so ATC should still get a complete picture of what's up there.
look at the United A320 that landed in the Hudson river, that sank without a trace.
Eh? No it didn't, they pulled it out - in fact I'm not sure it even fully sank (not deep enough)
[img]
[/img]
I believe that with the right conditions, low speed approach, maximum braking and reverse thrust applied (and depending on how much weight the aircraft is carrying) that a 777 can come to a full stop from the point of touchdown in somewhere between 600m and 900m. That's not a very long runway.
But doesn't that conspiracy theory also require it to take off again ?
But doesn't that conspiracy theory also require it to take off again ?
Conveyor belt, obviously.
all a bit baffling
My bet is it being at the bottom of the sea somewhere. Would love to be proven wrong however. Fingers crossed for all on board, until they find it crashed there is still some hope
But doesn't that conspiracy theory also require it to take off again ?
[url=
a 777 but similar performance - click on 'show more' tab below video for info[/url]
seems a bit like a primer in international diplomacy
majority of passengers Chinese and as far as I can see zero comment from Chinese officials
a handful of US and Au passengers and both countries allowing Malaysia to take the public lead despite access to high tech resources and would usually take stance that their nationals are their concern
question in my mind is if a hijack and communication from plane was with China when will the US stand up and say so - 2 days of leaks before Malaysia confirmed plane flew on
Ok, on the video rebel12 posted, what's the (what looks like) puff of smoke from the tyres at about 46 seconds in. Looks like the wheels locked (which would be silly during take off.)
(Edit) Or is the brakes going on to help rotate?
(Edit again) but that wouldn't help.
Water on the runway.
I believe that with the right conditions, low speed approach, maximum braking and reverse thrust applied (and depending on how much weight the aircraft is carrying) that a 777 can come to a full stop from the point of touchdown in somewhere between 600m and 900m. That's not a very long runway
In perfect conditions perhaps.
But this aircraft had 239 POB - that's nearly 20000kg, at a conservative estimate. Add to that another 6000-8000kg for baggage and 40000ish kg for fuel (8200kg per hour burn, and it was 2 hours into a 6 hour flight - plus a bit more diversion fuel) and you've got a significantly heavy aircraft. And this doesn't account for any freight in the holds.
Plenty of slack handed estimates on my part. But this isn't an empty aircraft we're talking about.
Ok, on the video rebel12 posted, what's the (what looks like) puff of smoke from the tyres at about 46 seconds in. Looks like the wheels locked (which would be silly during take off.)(Edit) Or is the brakes going on to help rotate?
(Edit again) but that wouldn't help.
Not sure but looks like its just run through a patch of dust, water or similar on the runway, or on a taxiway crossing the runway.
There's another related video that shows the plane from the other side. Looks like the pilot started off the end of the concrete runway! Dust as the plane hits concrete.
Interesting the plane is unmarked. Did they reprint it before attempting take-off, just in case it became a YouTube hit for a different reason??
Plenty of slack handed estimates on my part. But this isn't an empty aircraft we're talking about.
Obviously these things are all dependent on a number of factors but the following extract from the 777 testing programme shows that:
"A 777-200 at the Maximum Takeoff Weight of 288 tonnes (288,000 kg, or 545,000 lb) was accelerated to a V1 speed of 210 mph/183 Kt, at which point maximum brakes were applied. Despite using badly-worn brakes, the aircraft stopped in 4000 ft."
4,000ft in new money is 1,212 metres. The maximum landing weight for the 777-200 is 213,000kg, a lot less than in the test above, and the test above was using wheel brakes only - not reverse thrust also.
MH370's likely approach speed and landing weight would probably have been even less than the figures shown above.
Typical approach speed for the 777-200 is 160mph/139 Kt.
Empty weight of the 777-200 is around 138,000kg so say allowing for 6,000kg fuel remaining, 20,000kg of passengers and another 15,000kg cargo that would make 179,000kg (as a pure estimate of course).
Fair point, well made.
I still think it's unlikely to have been landed anywhere. Time will tell, i suppose.
[quote=rebel12 ]Don't see why the hijackers would run out of fuel and crash - these people clearly knew what they were doing and if they were going to crash then they would have had a specific objective in mind surely? It seems unlikely the hijackers would have crashed it into a completely remote area - I mean what would be the point if there's no one there to see?
Hijackings quite often don't go to plan for obvious reasons.
If it had crashed in a random location for whatever reason then there's a good chance that some debris or other evidence would have been found by now. I'd have thought here's not many places in the world that are so remote, including the open sea, that an aircraft of this size could crash and go completely un-noticed for a whole week.
I'm not sure you appreciate quite how vast and empty the open sea is. Maybe if they had some idea where it went down and had narrowed the search, but they don't.
[quote=njee20 ]No, you're trying too hard to be pedantic and clever. A) stabilizer is the Americanism (as Duffer pointed out, and as is in your own link...) and b) the tail is the type of vertical stabiliser that A330 had. Bit like saying "my bike has Rocket Rons", You've just said "no, it has tyres". Smug pedant fail.
Well not really. A lot of aviation stuff uses "americanisms" as standard. Meanwhile vertical stabilizer is actually a far more specific term than tail (which would tend to include the horizontal stabilizers, part of the fuselage and typically the APU among other stuff). The photos posted are of the vertical stabilizer, not the tail. The tail isn't actually a type of vertical stabilizer at all - if that was the case, what other types of vertical stabilizer do you think there are? A better analogy might be you posting a picture of a tyre and saying "here's a photo of my wheel".
I think if the plane had landed, somebody, somewhere would have received some communication from a passenger, what with mobile phones and all that. I think it has crashed in waters somewhere. A totally mystery at the moment, but so was AF447 which was eventually explained, and I think this will be too.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here, but one suggestion which seems to be taken as realistic on the pprune thread is that all the passengers could have been disabled through hypoxia (or possibly CO2 poisoning amongst other possibilities) quite early on. Hence it could have landed somewhere but full of dead people. Not that I think it's likely, but it certainly seems more plausible that it could have landed somewhere with the latest information about how long it flew for.
Daily Express headline today on front pg: Plane taken by Pirates.
I thought how do you get a Parrot through customs and hide your accent?
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here, but one suggestion which seems to be taken as realistic on the pprune thread is that all the passengers could have been disabled through hypoxia (or possibly CO2 poisoning amongst other possibilities) quite early on. Hence it could have landed somewhere but full of dead people. Not that I think it's likely, but it certainly seems more plausible that it could have landed somewhere with the latest information about how long it flew for.
Wasn't that the start of Mission Impossible II, or III or IV?
Someone has been googling 😉Meanwhile vertical stabilizer is actually a far more specific term than tail (which would tend to include the horizontal stabilizers, part of the fuselage and typically the APU among other stuff). The photos posted are of the vertical stabilizer, not the tail. The tail isn't actually a type of vertical stabilizer at all - if that was the case, what other types of vertical stabilizer do you think there are?
Interesting how debates on here make you read up and learn stuff though - its not really a criticism to say hey you went and educated yourself on the subject though ...it may even be a straw man 😛
The latest educated opinion (i.e. pilots, not just people on the internet) seems to be that the aircraft flew a waypointed course, and that's something that could really only be done by someone certified to fly the aircraft - i.e. the pilot, basically.
Looking like it headed down over the south Indian Ocean, for who knows what reason.
I think it was Bane.
My opinion may be ignorant and uninformed but damnit, I am entitled to it!!oNE!
Now we know acars and the transponder were switched off, we've came to the conclusion that it couldn't have been hijacked (no hijack squawk) and that one of the pilots has went mental. He's offed the other pilot and tried to make his way to afghan for some good smack.
Well the smack bits a lie, but if the pilot is suicidal, the above scenario is plausible. Passengers wouldn't know a thing about it so no one would be trying to phone relatives etc.
I'm not sure you appreciate quite how vast and empty the open sea is. Maybe if they had some idea where it went down and had narrowed the search, but they don't.
True, however it's likely that if this happened then the much floating debris that would result, would now, after a week, have dispersed far and wide - so it's still strange that no one's seen anything, especially considering how much publicity this has had, and considering how heavily fished most waters are now.
You also have to ask the question, why would the hijackers crash land at sea where no one would know? The polar opposite of almost all other hijackings where publicity or some other demands were sought/made.
You have to remember that if the plane carried on flying for several hours then a) the people flying it were fully competent and trained, b) the plane was fully working without mechanical problem and c) there's no likely reason why it should have been crashed, either deliberately or as an accident.
Of course there's a chance I'm totally wrong. It's just my opinion from the evidence we seem to have.
Whatever the outcome I am sure it is related to terrorism. If the plane did not disintegrate mid air or dive into sea but flew towards Northern India or Central Asia then it's definitely in the hand of fanatics now planning their next move.
[quote=Junkyard ]Someone has been googling
Interesting how debates on here make you read up and learn stuff though - its not really a criticism to say hey you went and educated yourself on the subject though ...it may even be a straw man
Just for a change, no, it's a subject I happen to know a bit about - I have done some work with real aircraft (I think some of the kit I helped put together is still flying around) and also fly models. You do make a good point in general though.
So the plane, once it went missing, flew a way marked course and it appeared to have more fuel than necessary on board....
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-199.html 3980
[quote=rebel12 ]True, however it's likely that if this happened then the much floating debris that would result, would now, after a week, have dispersed far and wide - so it's still strange that no one's seen anything, especially considering how much publicity this has had, and considering how heavily fished most waters are now.
Not necessarily that much floating debris - it took a while to find anything of AF447 and they had a much better idea where that went down. Meanwhile plenty of water out there which nobody goes near. One of the most plausible theories is also pilot suicide, and as I mentioned above the hijacking could have gone wrong. We're just guessing though - I'm sure we will find out more eventually. As I suggested a bit earlier it now seems clear that they knew a lot more than they have been telling us.
Even pilot suicide would be odd - to apparently load more fuel, then deliberately fly a course that avoids detection. Much easier to just fly into a mountain. Unless it's some weird fantasy thing.
I think the issue is that anything is odd given the available evidence.
considering how heavily fished most waters are now.
Once you get off the main shipping lanes the Indian Ocean is a pretty empty place. I worked on a survey boat out there once for about three weeks. I think we saw one other boat on the horizon and that was it. This is a plot of shipping density, some big holes...
[img] 
[/img]
