MH370 - "new" news
GBO you are missing a very important detail which will come as no surprise to anyone. The 777 is a Boeing product and if there was a significant safety issue that would cause an aircraft to go from the Gulf of Thailand to the Indian ocean despite the best efforts of the crew, then it would have been grounded by the FAA. I know for a fact that the FAA was prepared to do just that if the cause of the MAS 777 ADIRU fault over Learmonth was not found within 48 hours of it occurring. The immediate fix was a reversion to a previous software installation on the ADIRU so the 777 fleet worldwide was allowed to keep flying. So no, there is no ongoing safety issue with the 777. Write a book with your theories if you are so certain and see how much a wider audience will take any notice of your ramblings.
Lookleft
When you look at the evidence FIRST
i.e. the primary radar data, phone logon, satellite data (BTO and BFO), lack of Flight ID, timing of logons, fuel load, fuel endurance, autopilot modes, actual weather conditions, debris drift, debris damage, barnacles, and official reports, then the SIMPLEST flightpath is:
A diversion to Banda Aceh via NILAM and SANOB.
THEN, looking at ALL the possible theories to meet that criteria, the MOST LIKELY scenario (note, not the only possibility) is:
An oxygen bottle rupture due to improper maintenance.
The issue is NOT with the safety record or design of the B777, it’s a fantastic product, the issue is MOST LIKELY with the root cause of the problem: improper maintenance of the oxygen bottle with unapproved methods using soap and water for leak tests.
The risk of an oxygen bottle rupture is extremely remote, if correct maintenance procedures are followed. But, if the operator doesn’t follow the correct maintenance procedures, all bets are off, it’s NOT the manufacturer’s fault.
This problem then goes beyond the B777 and Malaysia Airlines, it applies to ALL aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) and ALL other airlines using improvised procedures.
Do we really want aircraft flying around after known improper oxygen bottle maintenance?
When you look at the evidence FIRST
i.e. the primary radar data, phone logon, satellite data (BTO and BFO), lack of Flight ID, timing of logons, fuel load, fuel endurance, autopilot modes, actual weather conditions, debris drift, debris damage, barnacles, and official reports, then the SIMPLEST flightpath is:
A diversion to Banda Aceh via NILAM and SANOB.
THEN, looking at ALL the possible theories to meet that criteria, the MOST LIKELY scenario (note, not the only possibility) is:
An oxygen bottle rupture due to improper maintenance.
The issue is NOT with the safety record or design of the B777, it’s a fantastic product, the issue is MOST LIKELY with the root cause of the problem: improper maintenance of the oxygen bottle with unapproved methods using soap and water for leak tests.
The risk of an oxygen bottle rupture is extremely remote, if correct maintenance procedures are followed. But, if the operator doesn’t follow the correct maintenance procedures, all bets are off, it’s NOT the manufacturer’s fault.
This problem then goes beyond the B777 and Malaysia Airlines, it applies to ALL aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) and ALL other airlines using improvised procedures.
Do we really want aircraft flying around after known improper oxygen bottle maintenance?
BTW, the engineer in that video isn't Malaysian, he's not working in Malaysia, and he's not working on a Malaysian aircraft.
https://skyvector.com/?ll=-8.2767271...32714844142554
The risk of an oxygen bottle rupture is extremely remote, if correct maintenance procedures are followed. But, if the operator doesn’t follow the correct maintenance procedures, all bets are off, it’s NOT the manufacturer’s fault.
I have witnessed LPG fittings tested using soap and water and the person testing then rinsed the tank with fresh water.
You have a pet theory and are blind to its shortcomings. As suggested above, publish your report and have it dissected by experts better than the vast body of knowledge on the board.
Back from a break and I see this is still bubbling along.
As other contributors have replied, it is not a case of unable (sorry, UNABLE), in my case it is that I view the flight path matching exercise as interesting but ultimately too plagued by unknowable variables to have much utility. Amongst the long list of unknowable variables that any flight route model has to deal with are the aircraft's flight level and the weather (wind and temperature).
Essentially the only thing that you can lean on for weather data is the historic GDAS (nicely portrayed by https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/0...93.483,-14.300). While it looks pretty, the data is derived from estimates for just a handful of pressure altitudes (~60,500 ft, ~34,000 ft, ~18,500ft, ~10,000 ft, ~6,500 ft, ~4,500 ft, ~1,000 ft, surface) at three hour intervals. To apply that to the MH370 problem you have to do a lot of interpolation, and in two dimensions - time and altitude. People much smarter than me have created models that do just that but you're now working with estimates of estimated estimates.
Given the impact that wind direction, wind speed and air temperature have on fuel consumption, you've got a bit of a problem right there.
Interesting exercises for sure, but not one I'd be wasting my time on. I'm not an advocate of the "X marks the spot" approach to search area definition.
That statement smacks of your putting ego in the left hand seat. If you think that the flight path that you have posted is the "only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence" you can't be too widely read on this topic. Many flight paths have been proposed that are compliant.
Perhaps more to the point, as I demonstrated earlier, your flight path is not compliant with the satellite data. Your 00:19:30 UTC position of 34.4°S 93.0°E is >4 σ from the 00:19:29 UTC BTO (aka "the 7th arc"); that is most assuredly not "compliant with the evidence".
Separately, regards all the discussion on oxygen cylinder maintenance practices, it might be worth noting that there has only been one recorded oxygen cylinder failure in aviation, QF30. That cylinder didn't rupture at the valve end, it ruptured at or near the base.
Essentially the only thing that you can lean on for weather data is the historic GDAS (nicely portrayed by https://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/0...93.483,-14.300). While it looks pretty, the data is derived from estimates for just a handful of pressure altitudes (~60,500 ft, ~34,000 ft, ~18,500ft, ~10,000 ft, ~6,500 ft, ~4,500 ft, ~1,000 ft, surface) at three hour intervals. To apply that to the MH370 problem you have to do a lot of interpolation, and in two dimensions - time and altitude. People much smarter than me have created models that do just that but you're now working with estimates of estimated estimates.
Given the impact that wind direction, wind speed and air temperature have on fuel consumption, you've got a bit of a problem right there.
Interesting exercises for sure, but not one I'd be wasting my time on. I'm not an advocate of the "X marks the spot" approach to search area definition.
Perhaps more to the point, as I demonstrated earlier, your flight path is not compliant with the satellite data. Your 00:19:30 UTC position of 34.4°S 93.0°E is >4 σ from the 00:19:29 UTC BTO (aka "the 7th arc"); that is most assuredly not "compliant with the evidence".
Separately, regards all the discussion on oxygen cylinder maintenance practices, it might be worth noting that there has only been one recorded oxygen cylinder failure in aviation, QF30. That cylinder didn't rupture at the valve end, it ruptured at or near the base.
GBO you have put into words some really stupid statements but for me this takes your credibility to a new low.
You have gone on ad nauseum about how the oxy bottle took out the left AIMS cabinet which led to a serious of cascading problems for the crew that took their flight path from one ocean too another. If you are to be believed then how can it not bring into doubt the safety record or design of the 777? The 777 is one of the strongest aeroplanes ever built. Look at the survival rate of passengers following the BA accident at Heathrow, Asiana San Francisco and Emirates in Dubai. Yet here you are convinced that a ruptured oxy bottle did all you claim and Boeing would simply step back and not look into whether their design was flawed.
I know that you will keep stating your theory as though it is credible and accurate but then again Putin keeps claiming that Ukraine is not a country and belongs to Russia. Both of you are operating on the principle that if you state a falsehood often enough then it will eventually be believed.
The issue is NOT with the safety record or design of the B777, it’s a fantastic product, the issue is MOST LIKELY with the root cause of the problem: improper maintenance of the oxygen bottle with unapproved methods using soap and water for leak tests.
I know that you will keep stating your theory as though it is credible and accurate but then again Putin keeps claiming that Ukraine is not a country and belongs to Russia. Both of you are operating on the principle that if you state a falsehood often enough then it will eventually be believed.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
4 Posts
The main factor mitigating against the oxygen bottles being responsible is that they are COPV (Composite Over-wrapped Pressure Vessels) instead of the steel type bottle that exploded on the QF30. They are designed to leak-before-burst.
I don't recall any aviation related COPV incidents except for the failure of a Space X rocket because of a COPV incident, which seems to be more related to the failure of a support strut inside the (large) COPV tank rather than a burst issue.
With the QF incident being unique in aviation history, the design of the COPV and the failure of any CMC messages to be transmitted from MH370, as against the multitude sent in real time from QF30, this seems to make this theory unlikely at best.
I don't recall any aviation related COPV incidents except for the failure of a Space X rocket because of a COPV incident, which seems to be more related to the failure of a support strut inside the (large) COPV tank rather than a burst issue.
With the QF incident being unique in aviation history, the design of the COPV and the failure of any CMC messages to be transmitted from MH370, as against the multitude sent in real time from QF30, this seems to make this theory unlikely at best.
this is a very rough one but you get the point
https://skyvector.com/?ll=-8.2767271...32714844142554
https://skyvector.com/?ll=-8.2767271...32714844142554
The flightpath you have proposed is very complicated.
It is a poor match for debris drift or barnacle growth.
Whereas, the flightpath diversion to Banda Aceh is simpler and compliant with the satellite data.
Thanks MickG0105, I see you have finally worked out the wind uncertainty, as I stated before in post #310
Yes, the recorded GDAS wind does have an uncertainty with it, historically it can be up to 6 knots in error.
Thus, when you add the wind error, the predicted position at the seventh arc may differ from the true position by 34.2NM, after flying 2447NM in 5.7 hours on a constant heading. However, the CRASH site can be up to 40 NM from the seventh arc eg in the vicinity of 34S93E.
Of the many, many hours computing different flightpath/altitude/speed/fuel flow calculations, statistically the best fit with the satellite data is FL340/ECON DESC speed from overhead Banda Aceh with a constant magnetic heading i.e. end of route in LNAV.
When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.
Yes, the recorded GDAS wind does have an uncertainty with it, historically it can be up to 6 knots in error.
Thus, when you add the wind error, the predicted position at the seventh arc may differ from the true position by 34.2NM, after flying 2447NM in 5.7 hours on a constant heading. However, the CRASH site can be up to 40 NM from the seventh arc eg in the vicinity of 34S93E.
Of the many, many hours computing different flightpath/altitude/speed/fuel flow calculations, statistically the best fit with the satellite data is FL340/ECON DESC speed from overhead Banda Aceh with a constant magnetic heading i.e. end of route in LNAV.
When you factor in the error margins associated with magnetic variation, GDAS temps/winds and satellite data, the flightpath is compliant.
The crew oxygen bottle on MH370, which was serviced immediately prior to departure, is located IN the electronics bay next to the P105 Left Wire Integration Panel. If the oxygen bottle ruptures, the loss of CMC messages would be a minor problem compared to the other overwhelming failures the crew are experiencing.
Where would you divert? Penang? And at what altitude and speed?
And we have SEEN many examples where aircraft HAVE diverted to the nearest suitable airport following an emergency.
And then there is primary radar evidence showing MH370 diverting towards the nearest suitable airport ie Penang.
What we haven’t seen is the multiple primary radar recordings from Indonesia, namely Lhokseumawe, Sabang, Medan and Sibolga. All which had front row seats!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
4 Posts
The oxygen bottle rupture on QF30 was NOT located in the electronics bay.
The crew oxygen bottle on MH370, which was serviced immediately prior to departure, is located IN the electronics bay next to the P105 Left Wire Integration Panel. If the oxygen bottle ruptures, the loss of CMC messages would be a minor problem compared to the other overwhelming failures the crew are experiencing.
Where would you divert? Penang? And at what altitude and speed?
The crew oxygen bottle on MH370, which was serviced immediately prior to departure, is located IN the electronics bay next to the P105 Left Wire Integration Panel. If the oxygen bottle ruptures, the loss of CMC messages would be a minor problem compared to the other overwhelming failures the crew are experiencing.
Where would you divert? Penang? And at what altitude and speed?
There is no indication there was any issue with 9M-MRO at any point in the flight.
Last edited by Capt Kremin; 19th Jan 2023 at 00:24. Reason: readability
The following users liked this post:
I'd divert either straight ahead to Ho Chi Minh or do a 180 to KUL. Penang would not be in the equation. What I would not do, considering that one of the nominated Company Alternate Airports, with long runways, no terrain issues and fine weather, is directly ahead of me; is a reflex, high AOB 180 degree turn at the limits of the envelope. Especially since I am an experienced TRE who is training the FO of this particular flight, and I would be obliged to scrub the guy if he did the same thing in a simulator check. I have friends of mine who suffered that fate in Command Training by doing exactly that.
There is no indication there was any issue with 9M-MRO at any point in the flight.
There is no indication there was any issue with 9M-MRO at any point in the flight.
Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.
The loss of transponder, ACARS, radio communications, Flight ID, and diverting to an airport is consistent with an onboard emergency.
After reviewing the primary radar recording, the turn back was most likely at a standard 25 degree angle of bank left turn.
Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.
The loss of transponder, ACARS, radio communications, Flight ID, and diverting to an airport is consistent with an onboard emergency.
Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.
The loss of transponder, ACARS, radio communications, Flight ID, and diverting to an airport is consistent with an onboard emergency.
The following users liked this post:
Failing someone for diverting to the NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT seems harsh.
And we’ve also heard from many experienced jet transport pilots where they would divert to the nearest suitable airport eg Penang.
The following users liked this post:
