MH370 - "new" news
The following 4 users liked this post by BuzzBox:
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mediterranean
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent MH370 trajectory analysis reports (update March 2023)
Analyse de la trajectoire du Vol MH370
Patrick Blelly, Commandant de bord (r) et Jean-Luc Marchand, Ingénieur
https://www.mh370-caption.net/
(versions in french and english)
The solidly knowns and the inevitably needed asumptions are clearly separated.
The report aims to define the most probable ditching location, located near but slightly beyond previously suggested and searched areas.
Acknowledges it remains a hypothesis until the aircraft will be finally found and physically investigated.
After all those years, what more, what else, can be done to warrant another search? Opinions?
jr
Patrick Blelly, Commandant de bord (r) et Jean-Luc Marchand, Ingénieur
https://www.mh370-caption.net/
(versions in french and english)
The solidly knowns and the inevitably needed asumptions are clearly separated.
The report aims to define the most probable ditching location, located near but slightly beyond previously suggested and searched areas.
Acknowledges it remains a hypothesis until the aircraft will be finally found and physically investigated.
After all those years, what more, what else, can be done to warrant another search? Opinions?
jr
"The takeover of Flight MH370 by a pilot who crashed the Boeing in a remote site in the Indian ocean emerged as the most plausible explanation of the disaster..."
Knowledgeable people are racking their brains for a likely or very possible explanation for this incident, and those people eventually have to suspect and settle on the above. But of the 70 or so books that have been written on this mystery, I've never seen reference to that written by Richard Nixon, a retired Australian A380 pilot; The Crash of MH370. Note, not 'The Truth About MH370' or 'The Secret Files' or 'The Coverup' or some other emotive or sensational title.
Nixon describes how the whole incident COULD have developed and evolved in a manner that has nothing whatever to do with pilot suicide. It's worth a look, even if only to accept that there may yet be an explanation that hasn't been thought of.
Just saying...
(PS: the MH370 thread is closed)
Knowledgeable people are racking their brains for a likely or very possible explanation for this incident, and those people eventually have to suspect and settle on the above. But of the 70 or so books that have been written on this mystery, I've never seen reference to that written by Richard Nixon, a retired Australian A380 pilot; The Crash of MH370. Note, not 'The Truth About MH370' or 'The Secret Files' or 'The Coverup' or some other emotive or sensational title.
Nixon describes how the whole incident COULD have developed and evolved in a manner that has nothing whatever to do with pilot suicide. It's worth a look, even if only to accept that there may yet be an explanation that hasn't been thought of.
Just saying...
(PS: the MH370 thread is closed)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nixon describes how the whole incident COULD have developed and evolved in a manner that has nothing whatever to do with pilot suicide. It's worth a look, even if only to accept that there may yet be an explanation that hasn't been thought of.
The following 2 users liked this post by BuzzBox:
172, I COULD answer your question here (assuming I can find the book in my out-of-control library) but with a lengthy post. The mention of Nixon's book is meant to interest you to read it. BUT, if I can find the book perhaps I will summarise if no-one precedes me.
[Edit] OK, found it on my Kindle. Nixon's analysis is indeed too comprehensive and lengthy to even summarise. But I can say that he too opines on smoke in the cockpit (including mention of an 'oxygen generator'). And he does say, "If the fire had started in the upper rear right-hand rack in the [avionics compartment (E bay)] beneath the forward cabin and flight deck, then maybe the ACARS and radios were gone before anything became apparent." Perhaps, at a later date, I can provide his Analysis and Conclusion recaps. The book is really a credible and helpful read.
[Edit] OK, found it on my Kindle. Nixon's analysis is indeed too comprehensive and lengthy to even summarise. But I can say that he too opines on smoke in the cockpit (including mention of an 'oxygen generator'). And he does say, "If the fire had started in the upper rear right-hand rack in the [avionics compartment (E bay)] beneath the forward cabin and flight deck, then maybe the ACARS and radios were gone before anything became apparent." Perhaps, at a later date, I can provide his Analysis and Conclusion recaps. The book is really a credible and helpful read.
Last edited by Down and Welded; 5th Apr 2023 at 04:46.
The following users liked this post:
Indeed he does. He will probably even sell you a copy of his book. But it's readily available through online outlets anyway.
I truly feel that the hypotheses of people such as James Nixon and GBO on this forum are the most useful in ruminating on this incident. One has the gut feeling that when the (real) facts are finally known---it they're ever known---it'll be proven to be something as prosaic (by comparison, that is) as one of these theories, as opposed to the fanciful other ones.
I truly feel that the hypotheses of people such as James Nixon and GBO on this forum are the most useful in ruminating on this incident. One has the gut feeling that when the (real) facts are finally known---it they're ever known---it'll be proven to be something as prosaic (by comparison, that is) as one of these theories, as opposed to the fanciful other ones.
OK, here is Captain Nixon's (greatly) summarised hypothesis. I'd forgotten, but on re-reading found he'd 'Recapped' the Analysis and Conclusion chapters. Here they are for comparison with previous posts. Nixon published The Crash of MH370 in 2017.
Analysis recap:
• Lethal smoke, source unknown
• Captain disconnected the autopilot and tried to turn towards Penang and the FO tried to complete the initial ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ actions before putting on their masks
• Both succumbed to smoke before managing to do that
• The aircraft continued without the autopilot, and at the mercy of the elements. Its in-built design stability kept it flying.
• If it encountered severe weather its heading may have been affected
• With TAC operating, even with no autopilot, the end-of-flight scenario assumes a 15nm radius from the double-engine flameout entering the water, the intersection of the 7th arc at 35 degrees south
• With no TAC and no autopilot operating, the end-of-flight scenario may assume the left engine operating at cruise power, possibly a higher rate of descent and a crash site within a 40 nm radius of the first flameout entering the water, the intersection of the 7th arc at 35 degrees south.
Conclusions recap:
• The pilots performed as well as any other crew
• An emergency event developed, disabling ACARS, transponder, and radios
• Recognizing the urgency, the captain disconnected the autopilot to decrease his turn radius to fly to Penang
• Both pilots were overwhelmed by lethal smoke
• The aircraft’s progress was affected by the weather
• The inherent stability of the 777, and its inertia, caused MH370 to fly for so long by itself
• Simulator modelling will be required to determine how the aircraft would have performed with the autopilot off
• The main debris is most likely located in the area suggested by Dr. David Griffin, within a radius of 40 nm at the intersection of the 7th arc and 35 degrees south. His position has been strengthened by the use of an actual Boeing 777 flaperon in tests in the seas off Hobart, and also by drift modelling done
by the University of Western Australia.
For those interested, here’s the Table of Contents:
The Crash of MH370, Reviews, Library Page, Legal Disclaimer, Dedication, Foreword, Introduction, The Known Facts, The Players, The Pilots, The Flight, Losing Contact, The Search, Theories, My Analysis, Conclusions, Recommendations, What's Next? Acknowledgements, Additional Reading/Viewing, Appendix, List Of Abbreviations, Glossary Of Terms
Analysis recap:
• Lethal smoke, source unknown
• Captain disconnected the autopilot and tried to turn towards Penang and the FO tried to complete the initial ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ actions before putting on their masks
• Both succumbed to smoke before managing to do that
• The aircraft continued without the autopilot, and at the mercy of the elements. Its in-built design stability kept it flying.
• If it encountered severe weather its heading may have been affected
• With TAC operating, even with no autopilot, the end-of-flight scenario assumes a 15nm radius from the double-engine flameout entering the water, the intersection of the 7th arc at 35 degrees south
• With no TAC and no autopilot operating, the end-of-flight scenario may assume the left engine operating at cruise power, possibly a higher rate of descent and a crash site within a 40 nm radius of the first flameout entering the water, the intersection of the 7th arc at 35 degrees south.
Conclusions recap:
• The pilots performed as well as any other crew
• An emergency event developed, disabling ACARS, transponder, and radios
• Recognizing the urgency, the captain disconnected the autopilot to decrease his turn radius to fly to Penang
• Both pilots were overwhelmed by lethal smoke
• The aircraft’s progress was affected by the weather
• The inherent stability of the 777, and its inertia, caused MH370 to fly for so long by itself
• Simulator modelling will be required to determine how the aircraft would have performed with the autopilot off
• The main debris is most likely located in the area suggested by Dr. David Griffin, within a radius of 40 nm at the intersection of the 7th arc and 35 degrees south. His position has been strengthened by the use of an actual Boeing 777 flaperon in tests in the seas off Hobart, and also by drift modelling done
by the University of Western Australia.
For those interested, here’s the Table of Contents:
The Crash of MH370, Reviews, Library Page, Legal Disclaimer, Dedication, Foreword, Introduction, The Known Facts, The Players, The Pilots, The Flight, Losing Contact, The Search, Theories, My Analysis, Conclusions, Recommendations, What's Next? Acknowledgements, Additional Reading/Viewing, Appendix, List Of Abbreviations, Glossary Of Terms
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
3 Posts
A couple of observations.
I understand the turn was executed no more than two minutes after Captain Zaharie's routine sign off. Is it really likely that smoke could have both appeared and overwhelmed the crew so quickly? Wouldn't they have put their masks on immediately?
I know this has been speculated before, but why would he turn towards Penang of all places? I know it's nearer, but not significantly so. For the sake of a few additional minutes flying time, I would have thought KL was a far better option.
I understand the turn was executed no more than two minutes after Captain Zaharie's routine sign off. Is it really likely that smoke could have both appeared and overwhelmed the crew so quickly? Wouldn't they have put their masks on immediately?
If "A", then that aircraft continuing to fly for another seven hours is far less "prosaic" than B.
Captain disconnected the autopilot and tried to turn towards Penang and the FO tried to complete the initial ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ actions before putting on their masks
The following users liked this post:
It would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that The Big Book of Aircraft Accidents would have far fewer pages if every crew did everything that was dinned repeatedly into them every time.
The following 2 users liked this post by MickG0105:
James is a great story teller and has had quite an aviation career but an accident investigator he is not. The biggest flaw in the Analysis Recap is that the Captain disconnected the autopilot to turn back to Malaysia in response to a significant smoke fumes event. I very much doubt that an airline Captain would be disconnecting the autopilot and turning it at flight levels, particularly if the cockpit is filling up with smoke.
Obviously Jeff Wise has it right but commercial pilots are trying to cover it up. If the airlines realised that the aircraft could be flown perfectly well from a little box under the floor think how much they could charge for the seats in the front with a great view.
James is a great story teller and has had quite an aviation career but an accident investigator he is not. The biggest flaw in the Analysis Recap is that the Captain disconnected the autopilot to turn back to Malaysia in response to a significant smoke fumes event. I very much doubt that an airline Captain would be disconnecting the autopilot and turning it at flight levels, particularly if the cockpit is filling up with smoke.
I totally agree that any pilot flying at FL350 would have preferred to leave the autopilot engaged to make this turn. So, the question remains as to why would the turn be made with autopilot disengaged? Perhaps the pilot had no choice but to manually fly the aircraft because the automation failed? If the automation failed, then did something break to cause the failure? If so, what?
Last edited by smiling monkey; 6th Apr 2023 at 08:57. Reason: typo
The following users liked this post:
The primary radar recorded some enormous and erratic altitude changes that was physically impossible. Do you think it could record rate of turn of an aircraft accurately?
