MH370 - "new" news
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).
May I suggest you take your theories to another place as this is for Professional Pilots (hence the name).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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?
The following users liked this post:
). 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.
A pilot suffering from hypoxia at Penang would make irrational decisions, such as divert to Banda Aceh.
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Diverting at 10,000 feet is very fuel inefficient, the default LRC speed for the B777 is Mach 0.84
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 BuzzBox; 17th Dec 2022 at 13:31.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
So I would say it looks like the autopilot is not engaged.
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.
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 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…
