Originally Posted by
smiling monkey
Why would KUL have been better? They had no comms, no transponder, no TCAS. KUL would have a lot of scheduled movements in and out, even at that time of the night. Penang on the other hand only had one scheduled arrival at around 2:30 am. The runway lights would most probably have been on and the tower manned.
Disclaimer:- I am not a pilot, professional or otherwise, nor am I employed in the aviation industry. My observations are those of a reasonably intelligent person (at least that's what people tell me....) with an interest in aviation and some knowledge of the MH370 story. Obviously I will respect the informed views of the professionals.
The problem I have with the scenario described is that despite it imagining an event so sudden, catastrophic and overwhelming that less than 2 minutes after a routine sign-off at IGARI Captain Zaharie has decided to land the aircraft as quickly as possible, that within this extremely short time frame the crew have nevertheless been able to establish the condition of their instruments and communications, devised a plan to divert to the best suitable airfield, and begun to execute it. I'm struggling to find this credible. Would they have even known that they had lost the Transponder, TCAS and communications? Would they be aware of that nights movements in and out of Penang?
The three main arguments in favour of Penang that I have heard are 1) that it was the nearest suitable airport, 2) that as a Penang native Zaharie was familiar with it, and 3) that compared to KUL traffic would be light. In my opinion, arguments 1 & 2 are very weak. Penang was closer than KUL, but not by a great deal. 5 minutes flying time? Zaharie may have originally come from Penang but I don't believe as a 777 pilot he had recent operational experience of the airport; if he was familiar with anywhere wouldn't it have been KUL? The airport from which he had departed just 30 minutes previously and of which he would consequently have knowledge of the active runways? The third argument makes more sense, but would Zaharie really have had time to rationalise that? Again, I make no claim to a professional pilots insight, but wouldn't it have made more sense to turn the aircraft round and head back towards KUL in the first instance and then start troubleshooting and considering your options?
To answer the original question, it seems to me that if the crew expected to be able to land the aircraft safely it would better to try and make it back to base where MAS had engineering and operational support. Where there were 3 runways compared to PENs 1. Where, unlike PEN, if there were concerns about the control of the aircraft there was no terrain close to the airport and the area around the runways wasn't heavily built up. The argument about frequency of air traffic movements is a valid one, but surely not the only consideration.
Just for my education, has there ever been an instance of a large civil airliner having to land without any communication with ATC? Are there any protocols for such an event?