MH370 - "new" news
So we are all in agreement that the turn back towards Penang and to south of Penang is NOT in LNAV. Therefore the aircraft is being flown manually or by the autopilot in heading mode.
Now why would anyone NOT use LNAV? Because it’s not available at that time.
Now why would anyone NOT use LNAV? Because it’s not available at that time.
It would be a poor decision and increase crew workload.
Without a functioning AMU, the cockpit is deaf and dumb. Possible explanation of why SATCOM call from ground was not answered. You can forget about announcement to passengers and intercom with cabin crew too.
Even if LNAV wasn’t engaged until much later, so what? It doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t available, as you claim. The prevailing theory is that the pilot had no intention of landing at Penang, or anywhere else. You don’t need LNAV for that.
The following users liked this post:
All facts and leads are welcome. But loads of garbage posted here are pure speculations that came out by twisting the posters own limited knowledge of the plane, reading between the lines of reports and their own wild wet dreams.
Note, no radio calls or SATCOM calls where received from MH370.
You have no evidence to suggest the aircraft was on autopilot.
You have no evidence to suggest the crew was unresponsive at that time where the plane was near Banda.
You have no evidence to suggest Left A/T was failed.
You suggested that route! Why are you asking me? You don’t even know what you posted earlier?
You have no evidence to suggest the crew was unresponsive at that time where the plane was near Banda.
You have no evidence to suggest Left A/T was failed.
You suggested that route! Why are you asking me? You don’t even know what you posted earlier?
You have no evidence to suggest the aircraft was on autopilot.
You have no evidence to suggest the crew was unresponsive at that time where the plane was near Banda.
You have no evidence to suggest Left A/T was failed.
You suggested that route! Why are you asking me? You don’t even know what you posted earlier?
You have no evidence to suggest the crew was unresponsive at that time where the plane was near Banda.
You have no evidence to suggest Left A/T was failed.
You suggested that route! Why are you asking me? You don’t even know what you posted earlier?
The primary radar recordings showing the aircraft tracking via VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM.
The inability of the GES to connect to the AES at 1803 via the left HGA.
The crew not answering any calls at 1840 or 2314.
The aircraft continuing on a constant heading from the statistics of the satellite data.
The aircraft continuing until fuel exhaustion, 7 hours after the event at IGARI.
The fuel flow analysis pointing to an exact fuel exhaustion at the seventh arc.
The lack of Flight ID at SATCOM log on, which was not manually cleared via the MCDU.
The exact timing of the 1825 log on at NILAM.
The simplicity of flightpath, compare Captain Mike Glynn’s WSPR flightpath.
The rate of descent observed by BFO at the seventh arc at fuel exhaustion: 15,000feet/min
The position of the flaps at fuel exhaustion as determined by the ATSB.
The condition of the debris findings.
The beaching location and timing of debris findings.
The barnacle analysis on the debris.
The servicing of the oxygen bottle prior to departure by Malaysia, and equipment adjacent to it.
Yes, no concrete evidence, but we have a good idea where it is, most likely inside the seventh arc in the unsearched region at 34S 93E.
Where do you think it is? I haven’t seen your flightpath.
It's not my theory and I don't care if it's weak or not. I'm simply interested in seeing it tested and found either to be underdetermined by a more sound theory or not, in a process of civil discussion free from emotional and thick-headed input. As yet the former has not occurred in this forum. Why are you and Dre so emotionally invested in it?
Actually, it's not a classic example of any such thing. Don't be ridiculous. It appears from the discourse here that Dre is not as smart as he likes to hold himself to be and has soon resorted to playing the person as you call it, calling the person a flight simmer, casting aspersions on the person's aeronautical experience and qualification, etc, and then leaving. It's not very nice, not at all useful and the overall pattern is certainly indicative of narcissistic behaviour. Therefore the comments are not at all aimed at playing the man but at questioning the real motivation for the attack on this theory and the discussion thereof.
If you want a "classic example" look at posts #101 and 109 plus a few by other posters. Maybe you're his mummy in which case I aplogise for holding up the mirror.
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.
This may not have been specifically addressed. I think the theory on this is based on observed turn radius, speed, altitude and AFDS limitations. Is that what you're saying, GBO?
Actually, it's not a classic example of any such thing. Don't be ridiculous. It appears from the discourse here that Dre is not as smart as he likes to hold himself to be and has soon resorted to playing the person as you call it, calling the person a flight simmer, casting aspersions on the person's aeronautical experience and qualification, etc, and then leaving. It's not very nice, not at all useful and the overall pattern is certainly indicative of narcissistic behaviour. Therefore the comments are not at all aimed at playing the man but at questioning the real motivation for the attack on this theory and the discussion thereof.
If you want a "classic example" look at posts #101 and 109 plus a few by other posters. Maybe you're his mummy in which case I aplogise for holding up the mirror.
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
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.
Isn't everyone? This is a professional pilots forum. Every pilot wants to know what happened and how, I'd have thought.
There is a pretty good BS filter on this site. If the theory pans out - fine, but robust discussion is warranted. If regular users smell something fishy then expect them to rummage around to see where this is going. When people start attacking each other instead of the subject it probably means the discussion is done.
Actually, it's not a classic example of any such thing. Don't be ridiculous. It appears from the discourse here that Dre is not as smart as he likes to hold himself to be and has soon resorted to playing the person as you call it, calling the person a flight simmer, casting aspersions on the person's aeronautical experience and qualification, etc, and then leaving. It's not very nice, not at all useful and the overall pattern is certainly indicative of narcissistic behaviour. Therefore the comments are not at all aimed at playing the man but at questioning the real motivation for the attack on this theory and the discussion thereof.
Isn't everyone? This is a professional pilots forum. Every pilot wants to know what happened and how, I'd have thought.
There is a pretty good BS filter on this site. If the theory pans out - fine, but robust discussion is warranted. If regular users smell something fishy then expect them to rummage around to see where this is going. When people start attacking each other instead of the subject it probably means the discussion is done.
There is a pretty good BS filter on this site. If the theory pans out - fine, but robust discussion is warranted. If regular users smell something fishy then expect them to rummage around to see where this is going. When people start attacking each other instead of the subject it probably means the discussion is done.
It appears from the discourse here that Dre is not as smart as he likes to hold himself to be and has soon resorted to playing the person as you call it, calling the person a flight simmer, casting aspersions on the person's aeronautical experience and qualification, etc, and then leaving.
Truth is until the FDR/CVR are found people are filling in the (very large) blanks with their own theories. None of them can be proven true.
Even if the FDR/CVR are found then that may not put speculation to rest. Chances are the CVR may only contain hours of silence. The FDR would contain the recorded control inputs, but then it may be unclear who or why or under what psychological state those inputs were made, leading to further debate and disagreement on what the root cause of the accident was.
dr dre
Welcome back.
Yes, a ghost flight will probably have a quiet CVR for the last 6 hours.
Even if Malaysia decide to search the accident scenario site, and find the aircraft, Malaysia has already covered its tracks.
By restructuring the company from MAS to MAB, they struck out liability and are not responsible. Any salvaged wreckage is to be transport to KL.
No one will ever see the oxygen bottle. Clever.
Do you have a flightpath and endpoint for MH370?
Welcome back.
Yes, a ghost flight will probably have a quiet CVR for the last 6 hours.
Even if Malaysia decide to search the accident scenario site, and find the aircraft, Malaysia has already covered its tracks.
By restructuring the company from MAS to MAB, they struck out liability and are not responsible. Any salvaged wreckage is to be transport to KL.
No one will ever see the oxygen bottle. Clever.
Do you have a flightpath and endpoint for MH370?
So you are also a legal expert on liability. Excellent
EXTRACT ANNEX 13 to the Convention on Civil Aviation...
Release from custody 3.4 Subject to the provisions of 3.2 and 3.3, the State of Occurrence shall release custody of the aircraft, its contents or any parts thereof as soon as they are no longer required in the investigation, to any person or persons duly designated by the State of Registry or the State of the Operator, as applicable. For this purpose the State of Occurrence shall facilitate access to the aircraft, its contents or any parts thereof, provided that, if the aircraft, its contents, or any parts thereof lie in an area within which the State finds it impracticable to grant such access, it shall itself effect removal to a point where access can be given.
Release from custody 3.4 Subject to the provisions of 3.2 and 3.3, the State of Occurrence shall release custody of the aircraft, its contents or any parts thereof as soon as they are no longer required in the investigation, to any person or persons duly designated by the State of Registry or the State of the Operator, as applicable. For this purpose the State of Occurrence shall facilitate access to the aircraft, its contents or any parts thereof, provided that, if the aircraft, its contents, or any parts thereof lie in an area within which the State finds it impracticable to grant such access, it shall itself effect removal to a point where access can be given.
Last edited by Icarus2001; 18th Dec 2022 at 01:54.
