Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

MH370 - "new" news

Old 17th Dec 2022, 06:19
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,253
Received 304 Likes on 168 Posts
Originally Posted by GBO
And how do you know when to descend without VNAV?
And that confirms to me you’re a Flight Sim expert, and not a real pilot, as one would know the answer to that question.

May I suggest you take your theories to another place as this is for Professional Pilots (hence the name).
dr dre is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 06:43
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,169
Received 83 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Dora-9
Really? We'd never know exactly what they'd be thinking in this situation (if indeed this was the situation), but I reckon there's more than a 50% chance that they'd return to KL.
Fair point...
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 07:49
  #103 (permalink)  
GBO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Dora-9

So you are diverting from IGARI to Kuala Lumpur without a serviceable radio, to an airport further away, with more traffic and higher risk of collision. Seems like a dumb decision.

Penang is closer, has a lot less traffic, familiar to the crew and open.

GBO is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:01
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 606
Received 64 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
How does the primary radar track reveal which mode the aircraft was in laterally?
I would still like to know this too, please.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:17
  #105 (permalink)  
GBO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
BuzzBox

So if you can’t make a radio call, turning on your cell phone would be an option.

Diverting at 10,000 feet is very fuel inefficient, the default LRC speed for the B777 is Mach 0.84

With only 2 screens available, it is going to add complexity to the situation. Running a checklist on the R INBD DU, will mean the Engine and Crew Alert Display is not visible, items can be missed.

Yes, flying along the Malay/Thai border is not a concern in a emergency diversion to Penang. The standard route is along the border from Kota Bharu to Penang. Just like MH6163 flew 30 minutes later.

A pilot suffering from hypoxia at Penang would make irrational decisions, such as divert to Banda Aceh.
GBO is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:25
  #106 (permalink)  
GBO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
itsnotthatbloodyhard

The turn back radius indicates a turn radius of approximately 25 degrees angle of bank.
Given the speed, this is beyond the capabilities of LNAV. The turn back is either conducted manually or with the autopilot in heading mode.

The lateral tracking towards Penang, as observed by primary radar, is not via waypoints and has multiple minor heading changes. It is not tracking in LNAV, it is still being flown manually or by the autopilot in heading mode with minor heading changes.

The flightpath from south of Penang through the Malacca Strait is via waypoints. It is most likely now tracking in LNAV.

GBO is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:37
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
GBO have you ever "programmed" a diversion on an FMC? ................ Sorry to all the flight simmers out there but programming an FMC on Flight Sim is not the same as a professional pilot setting up an FMC after having done the appropriate type rating then line flying
Have you had any experience with these flight sims? The fidelity in some of them is very high and the manuals are in-depth. A flight simmer can easily find his way around the real version of the aircraft he simulates on a PC especially the FMC which is replicated fully. Some of them buy add-ons such as a CDU connected via USB. They figure it all out. Sorry but operating an airliner's FMC and MCP is by design a very easy process and any determined flight simmer can do it. I'm not sure that's what happened in this case but let's keep it real - you don't have to be a "type-rated" astronaut to operate the CDU. Diverting to a new waypoint is as easy as selecting LEGS followed by five alphanumeric keystrokes, followed by LSK1 and the EXEC button. Eight presses.

Originally Posted by dr dre
And that confirms to me you’re a Flight Sim expert, and not a real pilot, as one would know the answer to that question.
Have you flown overseas? Some cultures out there do not like operating outside of the VNAV determined path and would struggle (especially if his brain is short on oxygen) to work out a profile of their own. Just how it is. That might be what GBO is alluding to.

Originally Posted by dr dre
May I suggest you take your theories to another place as this is for Professional Pilots (hence the name).
You seem very determined to erase this theory and see off a poster. Why is that? You mentioned part of the name of this network but omitted the operative word: Rumour. Why not let this theory evolve?

Judging by your post history, you seem to have a deep-rooted desire to win arguments on the internet. You tell the mods to close down threads the content of which you don't like. You tell posters whose educated theories you don't like to go elsewhere. This haughty disdain and arrogant superiority is often found amongst narcissists. Interestingly, narcissism is often found in conspiracy theorists. You don't like conspiracy theories on pandemics but you're suggesting the MH370 investigation needs to proceed in the direction of a conspiracy or solitary plan, making you a conspiracy theorist. You have posted statements in this thread which are wrong. Misinformation. Do you need to be cancelled?
Eclan is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Eclan:
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:37
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,169
Received 83 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by GBO
Diverting at 10,000 feet is very fuel inefficient, the default LRC speed for the B777 is Mach 0.84
In the event of depressurisation, the usual procedure is to descend to 10,000 ft or the MSA, whichever is higher (read the manual ). I can assure you the LRC speed at 10,000 ft is NOT M0.84. Furthermore, the distance from IGARI to WMKP is only 221 NM, a good deal of which would be taken up by the descent. Do you seriously believe that fuel efficiency is an issue in this scenario? Good grief.

With only 2 screens available, it is going to add complexity to the situation. Running a checklist on the R INBD DU, will mean the Engine and Crew Alert Display is not visible, items can be missed.
Both pilots have a QRH right by their side. If necessary, either pilot could run a checklist from the QRH. It's not hard.

A pilot suffering from hypoxia at Penang would make irrational decisions, such as divert to Banda Aceh.
Rubbish. That's pure supposition on your part, with ZERO evidence.

BuzzBox is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:43
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,253
Received 304 Likes on 168 Posts
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
Do you seriously believe that fuel efficiency is an issue in this scenario? Good grief.

Give it a rest, bud. You are wrong in so many ways.
That poster is just a flight sim geek and a troll, someone who probably has 10,000hrs of B777 time on MS Flight Sim but zero hours in any real aircraft. Everything they post just comes across someone who’s studied the manuals ad nauseum but has no idea how the aircraft is practically operated in a real world environment. They didn’t know how to calculate top of descent without VNAV for instance.
dr dre is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:43
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Buzzbox,

re the O2 bottle rupture and subsequent damage.
Yes, QF30 had a large hole and rapid decompression. It doesn’t necessarily have to be so, could result in a slow decompression too.
The failure mode of the bottles on MH370 would different, they are composite rather than steel as on QF30.
I can imagine a dislodged bottle bouncing around avionics bay won’t always create a large fuselage hole.
Perhaps even no hole at all, consider the pressure wave from the rupture forcing open the over pressure valves(happened on QF30) causing only a subtle background decompression.
birdspeed is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:54
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,284
Received 311 Likes on 120 Posts
Originally Posted by Eclan
Judging by your post history, you seem to have a deep-rooted desire to win arguments on the internet. You tell the mods to close down threads the content of which you don't like. You tell posters whose educated theories you don't like to go elsewhere. This haughty disdain and arrogant superiority is often found amongst narcissists. Interestingly, narcissism is often found in conspiracy theorists. You don't like conspiracy theories on pandemics but you're suggesting the MH370 investigation needs to proceed in the direction of a conspiracy or solitary plan, making you a conspiracy theorist. You have posted statements in this thread which are wrong. Misinformation. Do you need to be cancelled?
Classic example of playing the person not the ball. Must be a weak theory.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 08:57
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
dr dre, Buzzbox,

Can you explain why the autopilot would be out and why the aircraft was manually turned at IGARI and hand flown towards Penang.
That fact on its own indicates the crew had a technical issue.

And going back to that atrocious report on the latest debris find. No it’s not a landing gear door, it’s looking like the top surface of an outboard flap. Any claims that it showed intentional gear down at the end need to be revised. Perhaps a media apology to the families and especially to the Captain’s is again in order for spreading false, unverified information.

Last edited by birdspeed; 17th Dec 2022 at 09:12.
birdspeed is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 09:59
  #113 (permalink)  
GBO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
BuzzBox

Descending to 10000 feet is an assumption that the crew knew that a depressurisation event was occurring.
If the crew don’t believe and don’t have any cabin altitude warning at IGARI, then there mindset is to divert at a suitable LRC speed ie Mach0.84 at an appropriate altitude (FL340). There is no need to descend.

Given the amount of failures and considering the time taken by other complex emergencies, such as QF32, then MH370 is not going to be ready for landing in 10minutes.

Unfortunately for some, the oxygen bottle rupture theory does match all the evidence and flightpath.
It ends with a deceased crew and the aircraft flying until fuel exhaustion and crashing in the southern Indian Ocean.
The bottle was repressurised immediately prior to flight by Malaysia.
GBO is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 10:10
  #114 (permalink)  
GBO
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 118
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Dr dre

You have misinterpreted “And how do you know when to descend without VNAV?”, this was a question directed at you to test your knowledge.
I already knew the answer from my extensive airline career. But you seem stuck on playing the man and not the ball.
So here’s your chance to play the ball, what flightpath and end location do you predict for MH370?
GBO is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 10:33
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,278
Received 161 Likes on 82 Posts
Originally Posted by GBO
I already knew the answer from my extensive airline career.
You’re not the baggage handler from Port Hedland by any chance?
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 11:09
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,854
Likes: 0
Received 229 Likes on 96 Posts
Diverting at 10,000 feet is very fuel inefficient, the default LRC speed for the B777 is Mach 0.84
This sentence alone confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 11:24
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,169
Received 83 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by birdspeed
Can you explain why the autopilot would be out and why the aircraft was manually turned at IGARI and hand flown towards Penang.
That fact on its own indicates the crew had a technical issue.
Let's not confuse "fact" with "theory". The theory about a hand-flown turn back at IGARI came from a simulator study that was conducted during the official investigation. That study concluded the turn back was flown with the autopilot disengaged because, with the autopilot engaged, they could not replicate the turn that was observed on primary radar. IIRC, a subsequent study, that was not part of the official investigation, found the radar-derived position data used in the simulator study was inaccurate. The second study used ADS-B derived position data and determined the observed turn was well within the capabilities of the autopilot. So who's right?

And going back to that atrocious report on the latest debris find. No it’s not a landing gear door, it’s looking like the top surface of an outboard flap. Any claims that it showed intentional gear down at the end need to be revised. Perhaps a media apology to the families and especially to the Captain’s is again in order for spreading false, unverified information.
I agree, that report should not have been made public.

Last edited by BuzzBox; 17th Dec 2022 at 13:31.
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 11:41
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,169
Received 83 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by GBO
Descending to 10000 feet is an assumption that the crew knew that a depressurisation event was occurring. If the crew don’t believe and don’t have any cabin altitude warning at IGARI, then there mindset is to divert at a suitable LRC speed ie Mach0.84 at an appropriate altitude (FL340). There is no need to descend.
That's your assumption, which I don't believe is plausible in a ruptured oxygen bottle scenario. Even if they did stay at high level, there would be no need to fly at LRC speed for a diversion of 200-odd nautical miles. They could fly at pretty much any speed they felt like, most likely the speed they were flying at the time the incident occurred.

Given the amount of failures and considering the time taken by other complex emergencies, such as QF32, then MH370 is not going to be ready for landing in 10minutes.
Did anybody say the aircraft would be ready for landing in 10 minutes?

Unfortunately for some, the oxygen bottle rupture theory does match all the evidence and flightpath.
No it doesn't. It sounds plausible at a superficial level, but there are some big holes which you refuse to acknowledge.
BuzzBox is online now  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 12:49
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
[QUOTE=BuzzBox;11349618]Let's not confuse "fact" with "theory". The theory about a hand-flown turn back at IGARI came from a simulator study that was conducted during the official investigation. That study concluded the turn back was flown with the autopilot disengaged, because they could not replicate a turn flown by the autopilot with the turn that was observed on primary radar. IIRC, a subsequent study, that was not part of the official investigation, found the radar-derived position data used in the simulator study was inaccurate. The second study used ADS-B derived position data and determined the observed turn was well within the capabilities of the autopilot. So who's right?[/cQUOTE]

This has always been the problem with this investigation. Where do you go for reliable information?
The official report says the autopilot must have been off for the turn. As far as I know the only other report was from the IG who say they can replicate the turn by going to bank angle 25 to make the turn. I don’t understand or have seen a report using ADS-B as that was definitely not working during the turn….But also the continuing flight towards Penang is not straight, so the autopilot is looking like it is off here too. The most accurate study of the primary radar also shows a flight at no particular altitude(phugoid?).

So I would say it looks like the autopilot is not engaged.

Last edited by birdspeed; 17th Dec 2022 at 13:01.
birdspeed is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2022, 14:34
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moved beyond
Posts: 1,169
Received 83 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by birdspeed
The official report says the autopilot must have been off for the turn. As far as I know the only other report was from the IG who say they can replicate the turn by going to bank angle 25 to make the turn. I don’t understand or have seen a report using ADS-B as that was definitely not working during the turn….But also the continuing flight towards Penang is not straight, so the autopilot is looking like it is off here too. The most accurate study of the primary radar also shows a flight at no particular altitude(phugoid?).

So I would say it looks like the autopilot is not engaged.
With respect to the turn back, the Safety Investigation Report (SIR) states:
​​ The reconstruction flight conducted on the B777 flight simulator had established that the turn back was likely made while the aircraft was under manual control and not the autopilot.​​​​
The IG found discrepancies between the radar position data and the ADS-B position data immediately before the transponder stopped transmitting. Those discrepancies called into question the accuracy of the turn entry point that was used in the simulator study. It was suggested that an earlier turn could be completed by the autopilot using a bank angle of 25°.

Regarding the military radar data, the SIR states:
It became very apparent, however, that the recorded altitude and speed change “blip” to “blip” were well beyond the capability of the aircraft. It was highlighted to the Team that the altitude and speed extracted from the data are subjected to inherent error. The only useful information obtained from the Military radar was the latitude and longitude position of the aircraft as this data is reasonably accurate.
The SIR also states:
The Team also noted that the aircraft’s flight path from after the turn was consistent with the navigation being set to LNAV and/or heading mode…
Which suggests the autopilot could well have been engaged during that part of the flight.
​​​​​​​
BuzzBox is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.