Earlier an engineer mentioned the (MEC??) and its location relative to an O2 bottle. Could a failure of or within the MEC cause a simultaneous hypoxic inducing event as well as a communications severing one?
This was covered in detail in several posts at the time but since it's a new day...the oxygen bottle in question is the supply for the emergency oxygen masks on the flight deck.
Safe to say, if an intentional reroute (by crew or others on board) is indeed what happened, the best spot to do it would be approaching TOC, out in the middle of the ocean, as opposed to straight after take off whereby the response from authorities would be a lot quicker...
It struck me as odd, from the beginning, that a catastrophic event would happen right at the point of handover to another countrys ATC, where Comms were weak, and where radar coverage was nearing its limit. Not to say all the holes in the cheese lined up, it's definitely happened before, but .... if you planned to divert an aircraft, where else would you select?
That range ring example whilst mildly helpful, is still air.
Roughly, any westbound travel will have less range due headwinds encountered.
That's as may be, but the ring requested wanted KUL as the center point. To add winds into a poorly chosen datum (which I did not choose) would only introduce further error.
There's a process to determining search areas which involves reducing uncertainties. Starting with a ring centered about an airport isn't part of that process unless there is no other information available. I provided what was asked for without compounding the ~500nm error inherent in the request. Adding winds (which can only be guessed at without knowing altitudes) would have done just that. Without more data than appears to be available to the general public it is pretty unlikely that any individual or small group will settle upon a high probability search area.
As a sign of respect, MAS has decided to discontinue the use of two flight codes associated with the missing plane, mainly MH370 and MH371 will now be changed to MH318 and MH319 as from tomorrow, for the route KL to Beijing and back.
Both Malaysian and Vietnamese SAR officials have stated emphatically, that their aircraft have previously searched - and again searched (today - Thursday, 13th March) - the area where the Chinese satellite reputedly identified possible wreckage - and "there is nothing there".
One U.S. official at the SAR frontline, is reported to be scathing of the Chinese "find", as a "red herring".
in 1979, A Varig Cargo B707 has vanished not long after its departure from Tokyo in route to LAX. Nothing was ever found, no trace.
In the case of this B777, I would not be surprised if there was a cabin or cargo, fire, the crew being under a high work load and using oxy masks had other priorities and ATC was not the most important. Fire became uncontrollable and the Captain made a successful ditching. Unfortunately, all pax were already dead due to smoke inhalation, and no one evacuated. The aircraft did not brake apart and remained in one piece that is now in the bottom of the ocean. No debris to float. Captain and or FO, could have initially survived.
It is now being reported in the UK Telegraph newspaper that downlinked engine data shows the aircraft "may" have flown for four hours after contact was lost. Why is this story such a fact free zone? The aircraft either flew four more hours or it did not there is no may or probably about it.
It would help the investigation if people resisted the temptation to give the media a headline and checked their facts before opening their mouths!
My 2c's worth on the topic of the contents of the cargo manifest...
Given the total lack of information, the valuable cargo theory is at this stage not an entirely implausible one. BUT:
Having some experience in ground ops, I can safely say that high value shipments have some rather special security procedures, and information is circulated on a very limited need to know basis. In many cases even the shipper does not know which actual flight it will be on until airborne, and the crew does definitely not know in advance.
IF one would want to divert an entire T7 to get at the valuable cargo, that would need to involve some very sophisticated advance planning, and would need the crew as well as several other individuals high up in the decision making chain in the cargo and security areas as accomplices, not to mention the logistics at the other end. It is certainly not something any crew would be able to organize on impulse once seeing the cargo manifest.
Until cargo manifest is released I would call this scenario not impossible, but highly improbable.
Anyone heard of any official reaction on the claims of the WSJ article from any of the involved parties ? It is definitely not a claim to be taken lightly.
So if the manufacturer RR was ever to confirm receipt of engine performance data - and then the assumption of several subsequent hours of flight becomes more sound - then what of the 200 pax and there being no word from then (presumably) since? Can it be assumed that they didn't reach landfall? in this case I suppose fuel exhaustion becomes the premise of speculation.
With the eyes of the world's media upon them, the Malaysian authorities ought be stating verifiable facts of what is known, not simply flight number change niceties on their incident website.
Pom Pax - Malaysia isn't Kalgoorlie - and there have been numerous gold thefts in transit in Australia (including Kalgoorlie - and I am quite familiar with Kalgoorlie, and the lovely yellow metal that has turned many a mind to criminality). A bloke working in the Perth Mint even got away with a substantial gold theft (for a while).
Again, speaking as a retired detective, I have to question the rationale that the cargo would be seized mid-air by taking the whole aircraft.
Having been involved in an investigation of a bullion seizure which was being transported from the airport to its destination, the easiest time to grab the cargo is during its transfer to or from the airport, not while it's in the air.
There are too many unknowns involved in seizing the entire aircraft, including the matter of the 239 persons on board, the risks of detection whilst trying to spirit the aircraft away, finding a place to land the aircraft on the QT, etc.
I just don't buy the "seize the whole aircraft" theory.
Receipt of engine performance data for several hours is compelling, it assumes serviceable electrical channels, serviceable data busses from wing to main equipment centrex serviceable ACARS VHF systems. If this is verified, it's a game changer.
The report said data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing 777’s engines indicated the plane remained in the air for a total of five hours – a further four hours after contact was lost.
but how could it fly on for a futher 4 hours without some sort of radar trace, if only as a large lump of metal i.e. without transponder, and if not following the original flight plan route what were various ATC jurisidictions doing, they must have noticed an unplanned intruder ?
Engine performance data are sent automatically through ACARS.
Now, IF such data were actually downlinked by the aircraft and indicate an additional 4 hour flight time, then two questions arise:
1) Where did the WSJ take this information from? Boeing? ARINC? 2) Why did Malaysia Airlines declared at an earlier stage of the investigation that no ACARS had been received after the time the aircraft had disappeared?
Either someone is speculating without any shred of evidence or someone is withholding vital information for some reason.