MH370 - "new" news
The following users liked this post:
Icarus2001
You must have missed it.
According to court papers, MAB is not liable for the loss arising from MH370. That was MAS.
And what flightpath and endpoint do you have for MH370?
You must have missed it.
According to court papers, MAB is not liable for the loss arising from MH370. That was MAS.
And what flightpath and endpoint do you have for MH370?
GBO:
So am I. I was an airline pilot (which included flying the B777) for nearly 40 years (gulp) with 75% of this time being involved in the Check and Training world. I'm not attempting a "mine's bigger than yours" exercise here, merely laying out my background/exposure to the realities of airline flying. Dare I ask, without resorting to "playing the man", just what operational experience do you have? Some of your responses show ignorance of the realities of operating an airline aircraft.
For instance:
Rubbish! If an immediate return is required, then most crews that I've observed would use HDG, then sort out the return track and LNAV later. Pushing the heading knob and then rotating it hardly increases the crew workload.
You also insist, presumably because this fits your hypothesis, that the crew would have diverted to Penang, and not returned to KL. Your critique of my suggestion that's there's more than an even chance that the crew would not have selected Penang shows a lack of appreciation of the realities:
How much further away? A mere 60 nm by my quick calculation (i.e. 8 minutes in cruise). At this point none of your mooted failures were time critical. Are you seriously suggesting that "more traffic" is a valid reason for not selecting KL? Isn't that what surveillance radar is for? Would Penang even have been open that late (from my experience not, but that was a long time ago)? You state elsewhere that the crew would have been familiar with Penang, but arguably not recently - did MAS ever operate the B777 there? Certainly in my last airline, Penang had a reputation of being "tricky".
There are attractions for proceeding to KL. This was "Home Base", with major maintenance facilities, sufficient facilities to handle (and if necessary accommodate) a B777-load of passengers and a likely location of a replacement aircraft to continue the service. Further if the crew are stood down then they're going home to their own beds. In the theoretical world, none of these commercial/personal factors should influence command decisions but if you think that they don't (and from observation MAS crews are very eager to "help" their airline) then you're not living in the real world.
I’m a pilot
For instance:
Diverting to an airport 30 minutes away and purposely choosing to use heading mode over LNAV for the entire leg does not happen regularly.
It would be a poor decision and increase crew workload.
It would be a poor decision and increase crew workload.
You also insist, presumably because this fits your hypothesis, that the crew would have diverted to Penang, and not returned to KL. Your critique of my suggestion that's there's more than an even chance that the crew would not have selected Penang shows a lack of appreciation of the realities:
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.
Penang is closer, has a lot less traffic, familiar to the crew and open.
There are attractions for proceeding to KL. This was "Home Base", with major maintenance facilities, sufficient facilities to handle (and if necessary accommodate) a B777-load of passengers and a likely location of a replacement aircraft to continue the service. Further if the crew are stood down then they're going home to their own beds. In the theoretical world, none of these commercial/personal factors should influence command decisions but if you think that they don't (and from observation MAS crews are very eager to "help" their airline) then you're not living in the real world.
Last edited by Dora-9; 18th Dec 2022 at 07:11.
The following users liked this post:
As far as diverting to Penang or Kuala Lumpur without radios and transponder, well Penang is closer, open 24 hours, very familiar to the crew and has virtually no traffic at night. And that’s what MH370 did.
But if you want to divert to Kuala Lumpur then go for it, but just remember that it’s further, and you’ll be playing chicken with a LOT of traffic. So you may make it to “home base”, but you have increased the risk of a mid air collision and ending up in an aluminium ball!
As far as diverting to Penang or Kuala Lumpur without radios and transponder, well Penang is closer, open 24 hours, very familiar to the crew and has virtually no traffic at night. And that’s what MH370 did.
But if you want to divert to Kuala Lumpur then go for it, but just remember that it’s further, and you’ll be playing chicken with a LOT of traffic. So you may make it to “home base”, but you have increased the risk of a mid air collision and ending up in an aluminium ball!
But if you want to divert to Kuala Lumpur then go for it, but just remember that it’s further, and you’ll be playing chicken with a LOT of traffic. So you may make it to “home base”, but you have increased the risk of a mid air collision and ending up in an aluminium ball!
Can you support the Penang being "very familiar to the crew" contention?
The ENTIRE diversion to Penang is in heading mode or manually flown. The aircraft has not flown via waypoints, a STAR, or instrument approach. This will increase workload. This is not a hypothesis but the primary radar recording EVIDENCE.
As far as diverting to Penang or Kuala Lumpur without radios and transponder, well Penang is closer, open 24 hours, very familiar to the crew and has virtually no traffic at night. And that’s what MH370 did.
But if you want to divert to Kuala Lumpur then go for it, but just remember that it’s further, and you’ll be playing chicken with a LOT of traffic. So you may make it to “home base”, but you have increased the risk of a mid air collision and ending up in an aluminium ball!
As far as diverting to Penang or Kuala Lumpur without radios and transponder, well Penang is closer, open 24 hours, very familiar to the crew and has virtually no traffic at night. And that’s what MH370 did.
But if you want to divert to Kuala Lumpur then go for it, but just remember that it’s further, and you’ll be playing chicken with a LOT of traffic. So you may make it to “home base”, but you have increased the risk of a mid air collision and ending up in an aluminium ball!
It's been fun, though, and worth it just to see some of the sensitive ideological entities and online superhero saviours (you know who you are) in here getting wound up over someone else's theory which most likely will never make it beyond this thread.
Keep it coming, GBO, I find it very interesting.
Another howler showing a lack of airline experience…
Is ATC a mystery to you as well? NINC
About eight minutes difference.
But if you want to divert to Kuala Lumpur then go for it, but just remember that it’s further, and you’ll be playing chicken with a LOT of traffic.
About eight minutes difference.
The following users liked this post:
That suggests to me that you have little idea about the realities of this sort of flying, but you're welcome to your opinions. Can you imagine the subsequent interview with the Chief Pilot being asked to justify the reasons that you diverted to Penang and didn't return to KL, and then trotting out your response? I did a quick straw poll today amongst various ex-QF/SQ/MAS/CX friends (7 of them; 5 said they'd go to KL).
Can you support the Penang being "very familiar to the crew" contention?
Can you support the Penang being "very familiar to the crew" contention?
That’s strange because everyone I have spoken to in my crewroom elected to divert to Penang. None of them was going to play chicken at KL without a serviceable radio and inoperative transponder. Penang is very quiet and closer in an emergency.
I would think that the Chief Pilot would be pleased that I took the safer option and flew to Penang. I would hate for the Chief Pilot having to explain to the NOK why the aircraft diverted to the crowded airspace of Kuala Lumpur, without a serviceable radio and inoperative transponder, and then had a mid air collision, when Penang was closer and quieter.
You said “Can you support the Penang being very familiar to the crew contention?”
This seems like a strange question, everyone knows he was born in Penang and had flown many hours at Penang Airport.
You claimed that you’re a a pilot and that you consulted people in your crew room, but you didn’t answer Dora-9’s question: What operational experience do you have and what type of aircraft do you fly in the real world?
The following users liked this post:
everyone I have spoken to in my crewroom
ATC would be unaware of your presence if the aircraft does not have a serviceable radio and inoperative transponder and SATCOM.
I would think that the Chief Pilot would be pleased
This seems like a strange question, everyone knows he was born in Penang and had flown many hours at Penang Airport.
Dora-9, BuzzBox
How recently had the Captain been to Penang?
Not recently inflight in a B777, but he did on his home flight simulator on 21Dec2013 in a Boeing 737-800.
Diverting to the nearest suitable airport (Penang) in an emergency is a valid response to an incident at IGARI.
How recently had the Captain been to Penang?
Not recently inflight in a B777, but he did on his home flight simulator on 21Dec2013 in a Boeing 737-800.
Diverting to the nearest suitable airport (Penang) in an emergency is a valid response to an incident at IGARI.
The lack of Flight ID, but with the AES ID present at the 1825:27 SATCOM logon is the clue. What is the point of just deleting the Flight ID portion, it doesn’t hide the identity of the aircraft. Since there wasn’t a log off recorded by the GES, then the Flight ID was not manually cleared via the MCDU. It requires the AIMS to be depowered or a power reset of the FMC. So possibilities include someone going down into the MEC and pulling circuit breakers (highly unlikely), or there has been an FMC failure and software reset to the other FMC. Thus, there will be a period where the aircraft doesn’t have LNAV capability. Given that the aircraft was observed on primary radar to NOT be flying via LNAV between IGARI and Penang, then it’s possible that during this diversion, LNAV was not available, forcing the crew to fly on heading or manually. It’s not until west of Penang where primary radar shows the aircraft flying via waypoints ie LNAV is now available.
GBO, you need to snap yourself out of this mind set of flying LNAV west of PEN. It headed towards VAMPI then 10nm north of MEKAR. That’s not a normal LNAV way to fly let alone on airways. Please Flight ID comprises of a few info. Please be specific what you are referring to. Please stop embarrassing yourself about Flight ID entry via MCDU.
Why is everyone thinking of multiple system failures that knocked out the FMC, Displays, comms, pressurisation system etc to fit into the scenario? If you have read enough to understand the B777, only one system failure can caused this scenario. Please read more instead of keep pushing everyone to suggest for a flightpath and final position. You think Mike G came out with that final location? Read more!
Why is everyone thinking of multiple system failures that knocked out the FMC, Displays, comms, pressurisation system etc to fit into the scenario? If you have read enough to understand the B777, only one system failure can caused this scenario. Please read more instead of keep pushing everyone to suggest for a flightpath and final position. You think Mike G came out with that final location? Read more!
Not recently inflight in a B777, but he did on his home flight simulator on 21Dec2013 in a Boeing 737-800
A statistician would have a field day with the validity of either of our polls (insufficient data base for one), but I was very careful to pose your scenario as objectively as I could and individually, either in person or on the phone. I'm very wary of crew room Group Think - you should be too. My pollees comprised 4 current pilots and 3 retirees (4 Check Captains, 1 Training Capt and 2 Line Captains), all of whom have flown in that airspace. And yours were...?
The 777 was built to cope with redundancies that did not require extensive crew input. The QRH consists of a lot of condition statements rather than a lot of procedural steps. The number of 777 hull losses where no one was killed is impressive for a WB and is a testament to its engineering. So to suggest that an exploding oxy bottle is going to take out the crew and multiple systems just does not get past any rational scrutiny. If the crew, particularly an experienced PIC wanted to get that aircraft on the ground following an internal failure they would have done so. Any suggestion otherwise demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the mind set and competency of a well trained professional flight crew.
So to suggest that an exploding oxy bottle is going to take out the crew and multiple systems just does not get past any rational scrutiny.
If the crew, particularly an experienced PIC wanted to get that aircraft on the ground following an internal failure they would have done so.
Any suggestion otherwise demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the mind set and competency of a well trained professional flight crew.
If the crew, particularly an experienced PIC wanted to get that aircraft on the ground following an internal failure they would have done so.
Any suggestion otherwise demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the mind set and competency of a well trained professional flight crew.
Originally Posted by Dora-9
So surveillant radar doesn't work without a transponder being detected? Maybe ATC would be a bit slower at "seeing" you, but they assuredly would.
The 777 was built to cope with redundancies that did not require extensive crew input. The QRH consists of a lot of condition statements rather than a lot of procedural steps. The number of 777 hull losses where no one was killed is impressive for a WB and is a testament to its engineering. So to suggest that an exploding oxy bottle is going to take out the crew and multiple systems just does not get past any rational scrutiny. If the crew, particularly an experienced PIC wanted to get that aircraft on the ground following an internal failure they would have done so. Any suggestion otherwise demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the mind set and competency of a well trained professional flight crew.
Manufacturers, Air Transport Investigations folks and well trained professional flight crew alike all like to learn from incidents. Could "Gee, we didn't think about THAT one!!" ever be said about about the B777? Without firm evidence from MH370, maybe they'll never know.