Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Internet
Age: 47
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West of Malaysia, especially Malacca Strait is well under surveillance by Indian Navy. They have their base in Andaman "INS Baaz"which was recently handed over to their Navy:
India Gives Navy Control of Andaman and Nicobar Command | Defense News | defensenews.com
I am sure they must have been tracking that area, why dont they come forward and share some information.
India Gives Navy Control of Andaman and Nicobar Command | Defense News | defensenews.com
I am sure they must have been tracking that area, why dont they come forward and share some information.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the fact that quite a few relatives of the missing ones are claiming the phones rang or are still ringing after the aircraft “vanished” needs to be investigated.
We absolutely need to put a stop to people coming on here with their mobile phone conspiracy theories. As has been pointed out multiple times by multiple people.... the mobile phone stuff is a red herring, a false lead .... really, it is not worthy of discussion, at all, ever.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: home
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the fact that quite a few relatives of the missing ones are claiming the phones rang or are still ringing after the aircraft “vanished” needs to be investigated.
I’m no expert on mobile networks but given the laws that govern such things there should be a method by which global mobile operators could simply punch in an IMEI number into the database in order to determine the last radio mast registration. Collect IMEI numbers for all passengers and search through the databases. There’s nothing to lose. Even if one of them registered in the few hours after that plane went missing we would at least have a more accurate trajectory.
This only points in one direction - they just want time to cover-up.
That being said, there is probably plenty we do not know, but that is likely being withheld to save face or preserve egos rather than as a piece of a grander scheme. Everything seems to point in the direction that even those supposedly in the know are just as confused as we are here on the forum, just their high office precludes admitting that.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cover up
I live in the region and have been following the thread and a lot of the available publications in the press with interest. I am convinced, that something really crazy happened that Malaysia are trying to cover up. Maybe a high jacking gone wrong, just can't make up my mind if they crashed by themseves (but why would Malaysia cover it up) or they were shot down by Malaysian military (or something else very crazy).
I am just sure of something: China will be very very angry very soon, about being fooled by Malaysia. How many millions have been spent by almost a dozen countries looking in the wrong place. Malaysia will have no choice but to come out with the truth. I do not even understand how Malaysia can start searching on its west coast but denying it had any hint that the plane headed that way. There is something so obviously wrong and not matching, I am in fact surprised that China hasn't really made a big fuzz yet....
I am just sure of something: China will be very very angry very soon, about being fooled by Malaysia. How many millions have been spent by almost a dozen countries looking in the wrong place. Malaysia will have no choice but to come out with the truth. I do not even understand how Malaysia can start searching on its west coast but denying it had any hint that the plane headed that way. There is something so obviously wrong and not matching, I am in fact surprised that China hasn't really made a big fuzz yet....
Pinkman---100% agree. A few of us said back on page 1 that there are a lot of Fishing Boats and Oil Rigs in the region and there must have been someone that saw something......
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rundown of contradictory statements
Here's a thorough rundown of contradictory statements made by Malaysian authorities since this began:
Contradictory statements from Malaysia over missing airliner perplex, infuriate
"Azharuddin Abdul Rahman proceeded to issue the latest in a series of contradictory statements on the missing plane – statements from the Malaysians that have added to the confusion, infuriated passengers’ relatives and frustrated nearby governments."
Contradictory statements from Malaysia over missing airliner perplex, infuriate
"Azharuddin Abdul Rahman proceeded to issue the latest in a series of contradictory statements on the missing plane – statements from the Malaysians that have added to the confusion, infuriated passengers’ relatives and frustrated nearby governments."
On Spiegel.de (German language), it is claimed that the last transmission received from the aircraft was "All right, good night" or the like (translated by Spiegel into German and by me back into English, so exact words may vary). This was received at the occasion of the handover from Singapore to Ho Chi Minh.
If correct, it does not appear abnormal to me: just a standard salutation upon leaving a frequency without any indication of anything untoward.
If correct, it does not appear abnormal to me: just a standard salutation upon leaving a frequency without any indication of anything untoward.
An engine failure at night can emit a huge trail of sparks. Quite possibly one that is visible for miles. Completely plausible that this rig worker did see something. But no wreckage below.
Aircraft then turns westwards towards the wrong TRN VOR (as outlined by tarzanboy, copied below) descends by 10,000 feet -a figure mentioned by the Malaysians (but in meters). That would roughly correlate to drift down to the 777 OEI cruise?
Heads to wrong VOR, overrun with other problems (fumes/smoke) aircraft keeps on trucking westwards.
Aircraft then turns westwards towards the wrong TRN VOR (as outlined by tarzanboy, copied below) descends by 10,000 feet -a figure mentioned by the Malaysians (but in meters). That would roughly correlate to drift down to the 777 OEI cruise?
Heads to wrong VOR, overrun with other problems (fumes/smoke) aircraft keeps on trucking westwards.
What if MH370 wanted to perform an emergency landing for whatever reason. Close to IGARI point the crew entered a possible airport to land in their FMS which could be VVCT CAN THO with VOR "TRN", because this one has a 3000m runway which is close to the intended route ahead. But, there is another "TRN" VOR closer by, guess where: TRANG VOR close to the Andaman sea. The crew under severe stress executes the top TRN (closest by) in the FMS and the plane turns immediately to that point. Could this explain the hard left turn after IGARI point towards the Andaman sea?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re NZ 'burning' email
The only thing missing in the report was the actual time of observation (UT+7 for Vietnam, UT+8 for Malaysia)
Reading it, he obviously saw something burning and wrote burning (plane) to indicate he thought the burning could be a plane.
His bearing is basically due West. At the time of interest and given the duration it's unlikely to be a planet. It could be an aircraft at any distance depending on altitude.
The other alternative is a satellite. I've seen naked-eye satellites flare brightly and expand in size due to outgassing while in orbit. Alternatively I've also seen satellites re-entering that flared for about that period of time - tens of seconds. The only unusual thing is it was due west while satellites tend to orbit in an inclined plane, so no lateral movement is a problem for that explanation - though not impossible.
Reading it, he obviously saw something burning and wrote burning (plane) to indicate he thought the burning could be a plane.
His bearing is basically due West. At the time of interest and given the duration it's unlikely to be a planet. It could be an aircraft at any distance depending on altitude.
The other alternative is a satellite. I've seen naked-eye satellites flare brightly and expand in size due to outgassing while in orbit. Alternatively I've also seen satellites re-entering that flared for about that period of time - tens of seconds. The only unusual thing is it was due west while satellites tend to orbit in an inclined plane, so no lateral movement is a problem for that explanation - though not impossible.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinkman---100% agree. A few of us said back on page 1 that there are a lot of Fishing Boats and Oil Rigs in the region and there must have been someone that saw something......
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An equally interesting comment a long ways back that got little discussion also seems relevant. A question about accessibility and security of the MEC (Mechanical Equipment Center) on the 777.
A little research turns up some very interesting info.
First lets look at the MEC location - below and immediately behind the flight deck seems a perfect spot to have catastrophic consequences.
A search seems to show incidents which exhibited characteristics that well fit some of the scenarios discussed here at PPRuNe. Scenarios that address the seemingly unlikely event of loss of comms, loss of telemetry (ACARS), loss of transponder etc.
The investigation found:
It does not in my opinion take an engineer or accident investigator to see that had this incident occurred at cruise that the results could very well have matched what has been speculated here.
A failure (or even a breach) in the MEC causes fire. As the crew is unable to shut down and deplane, the incident escalates with smoke filling cabin/cockpit, followed quickly by electrical failure as we saw happen in this incident ...
As the fire continues uncontained, with the aircraft deaf and dumb - electrical; and as a result comms, transponder, ACARS etc all down, the fire breaches the aircraft hull - as it was well on its way to doing in this incident - followed by a rapid depressurization.
It seems entirely possible and plausible that in such instance, as the damage would be advanced before the crew even were aware - and with the likely rapid loss of electric bus and all related, that no Mayday would get out between discovery and loss of power.
I think it also at least plausible that the pilots MAY have been able to initiate an emergency procedure, but may have rapidly lost consciousness.
More experienced pilots please comment, but I believe the response to a rapid decompression at cruise is to push the nose over hard into a banked descent. I can imagine pilots initiating the emergency descent maneuver at same time they dial in a heading and lower altitude, then being overcome - by depressurization and as the descent continues, then by smoke.
The aircraft, even in distress, could likely fly a fairly long ways. With in the fairly long delay before anyone realized or were worried about the aircraft being missing, it could have traveled well out of the area.
If the MEC is accessible from the cabin it seems terrorism is at least possible - and seems something to look at. But regardless, this incident seems to show everything necessary to casue the scenario we have been discussing, is present in a previous incident with the aircraft.
References:
Short Version:
Air Accidents Investigation: S2/2007 Boeing 777-222, N786UA
Air Investigation Bulletin - Overview:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...7%20N786UA.pdf
Air Investigation - Complete:
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/647.pdf
A little research turns up some very interesting info.
First lets look at the MEC location - below and immediately behind the flight deck seems a perfect spot to have catastrophic consequences.
A search seems to show incidents which exhibited characteristics that well fit some of the scenarios discussed here at PPRuNe. Scenarios that address the seemingly unlikely event of loss of comms, loss of telemetry (ACARS), loss of transponder etc.
On 26 February 2007, a Boeing 777-222 operated by United Airlines, after pushback from the stand at London Heathrow Airport, experienced internal failure of an electrical component which subsequently led to under-floor fire. The aircraft returned to a stand where was attended by the Airfield Fire Service and the passengers were evacuated.
After engines start, about the time the engine driven Integrated Drive Generators (IDGs) would normally come on-line, the flight deck instrument displays flickered, the crew heard an abnormal noise and an EICAS message, amongst other related messages, indicated that the Right Main AC Bus had failed.
Some 40 seconds after the engines had stabilised at ground idle, the smoke detector in the Main Equipment Centre (MEC), located beneath the flight deck and forward vestibule, detected smoke. About two and a half minutes after the electrical failure, the crew became aware of a faint smell of electrical burning on the flight deck, following which the right engine was shut down. The crew were alerted by the ground handling crew that smoke was seen to be coming from the MEC vent and, a couple of minutes later, ATC also advised that smoke had been seen coming from the aircraft.
After engines start, about the time the engine driven Integrated Drive Generators (IDGs) would normally come on-line, the flight deck instrument displays flickered, the crew heard an abnormal noise and an EICAS message, amongst other related messages, indicated that the Right Main AC Bus had failed.
Some 40 seconds after the engines had stabilised at ground idle, the smoke detector in the Main Equipment Centre (MEC), located beneath the flight deck and forward vestibule, detected smoke. About two and a half minutes after the electrical failure, the crew became aware of a faint smell of electrical burning on the flight deck, following which the right engine was shut down. The crew were alerted by the ground handling crew that smoke was seen to be coming from the MEC vent and, a couple of minutes later, ATC also advised that smoke had been seen coming from the aircraft.
The accident occurred during engine start after pushback from the stand. After the right generator came online an electrical failure occurred in the right main bus. The failure resulted in severe internal arcing and short circuits inside the two main power cont actors of the right main bus. The heat generated during the failure resulted in the contactor casings becoming compromised, causing molten metal droplets to fall down onto the insulation blankets below. The insulation blankets ignited and a fire spread underneath a floor panel to the opposite electrical panel (P205) (see MEC compartment drawing above), causing heat and fire damage to structure, cooling ducts and wiring.
The Report identifies the following causal factors:
*An internal failure of the Right Generator Circuit Breaker or Right Bus Tie Breaker contactor on the P200 power panel inside the Main Equipment Centre resulted in severe internal arcing and short-circuits which melted the contactor casings. The root cause of contactor failure could not be determined.
*The open base of the P200 power panel allowed molten metal droplets from the failed contactors to drop down onto the insulation blankets and ignite them.
*The aircraft’s electrical protection system was not designed to detect and rapidly remove power from a contactor suffering from severe internal arcing and short-circuits.
*The contactors had internal design features that probably contributed to the uncontained failures.
The Report identifies the following causal factors:
*An internal failure of the Right Generator Circuit Breaker or Right Bus Tie Breaker contactor on the P200 power panel inside the Main Equipment Centre resulted in severe internal arcing and short-circuits which melted the contactor casings. The root cause of contactor failure could not be determined.
*The open base of the P200 power panel allowed molten metal droplets from the failed contactors to drop down onto the insulation blankets and ignite them.
*The aircraft’s electrical protection system was not designed to detect and rapidly remove power from a contactor suffering from severe internal arcing and short-circuits.
*The contactors had internal design features that probably contributed to the uncontained failures.
A failure (or even a breach) in the MEC causes fire. As the crew is unable to shut down and deplane, the incident escalates with smoke filling cabin/cockpit, followed quickly by electrical failure as we saw happen in this incident ...
As the fire continues uncontained, with the aircraft deaf and dumb - electrical; and as a result comms, transponder, ACARS etc all down, the fire breaches the aircraft hull - as it was well on its way to doing in this incident - followed by a rapid depressurization.
It seems entirely possible and plausible that in such instance, as the damage would be advanced before the crew even were aware - and with the likely rapid loss of electric bus and all related, that no Mayday would get out between discovery and loss of power.
I think it also at least plausible that the pilots MAY have been able to initiate an emergency procedure, but may have rapidly lost consciousness.
More experienced pilots please comment, but I believe the response to a rapid decompression at cruise is to push the nose over hard into a banked descent. I can imagine pilots initiating the emergency descent maneuver at same time they dial in a heading and lower altitude, then being overcome - by depressurization and as the descent continues, then by smoke.
The aircraft, even in distress, could likely fly a fairly long ways. With in the fairly long delay before anyone realized or were worried about the aircraft being missing, it could have traveled well out of the area.
If the MEC is accessible from the cabin it seems terrorism is at least possible - and seems something to look at. But regardless, this incident seems to show everything necessary to casue the scenario we have been discussing, is present in a previous incident with the aircraft.
References:
Short Version:
Air Accidents Investigation: S2/2007 Boeing 777-222, N786UA
Air Investigation Bulletin - Overview:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...7%20N786UA.pdf
Air Investigation - Complete:
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/647.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy in the email must have good eyes, the rig is currently located in the Caribbean Sea 22.84518 / -79.38331
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Carmarthen
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other alternative is a satellite. I've seen naked-eye satellites flare brightly and expand in size due to outgassing while in orbit. Alternatively I've also seen satellites re-entering that flared for about that period of time - tens of seconds. The only unusual thing is it was due west while satellites tend to orbit in an inclined plane, so no lateral movement is a problem for that explanation - though not impossible.
I believe the response to a rapid decompression at cruise is to push the nose over hard into a banked descent. I can imagine pilots initiating the emergency descent maneuver at same time they dial in a heading and lower altitude,
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Age: 41
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRU on 9M-MRG
I mentioned the ADIRU in another post.. This airplane (MRG) had an issue a while ago where they had zero authority on the control surfaces while it was in AP. Not saying MRO had this problem, but it's a little weird they were at similar cruising altitudes.
On 1 August 2005 a serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777-2H6ER (9M-MRG) flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur also involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded manoeuvres by the aircraft acting on false indications.[14] In that incident the incorrect data impacted all planes of movement while the aircraft was climbing through 38,000 feet (11,600 m). The aircraft pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered the aircraft with the autopilot disengaged and requested a return to Perth. During the return to Perth, both the left and right autopilots were briefly activated by the crew, but in both instances the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely in Perth. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft. The ATSB found that the main probable cause of this incident was a latent software error which allowed the ADIRU to use data from a failed accelerometer.[15]
The US Federal Aviation Administration issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-18-51 requiring all 777 operators to install upgraded software to resolve the error.[16]
On 1 August 2005 a serious incident involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 124, occurred when a Boeing 777-2H6ER (9M-MRG) flying from Perth to Kuala Lumpur also involved an ADIRU fault resulting in uncommanded manoeuvres by the aircraft acting on false indications.[14] In that incident the incorrect data impacted all planes of movement while the aircraft was climbing through 38,000 feet (11,600 m). The aircraft pitched up and climbed to around 41,000 feet (12,500 m), with the stall warning activated. The pilots recovered the aircraft with the autopilot disengaged and requested a return to Perth. During the return to Perth, both the left and right autopilots were briefly activated by the crew, but in both instances the aircraft pitched down and banked to the right. The aircraft was flown manually for the remainder of the flight and landed safely in Perth. There were no injuries and no damage to the aircraft. The ATSB found that the main probable cause of this incident was a latent software error which allowed the ADIRU to use data from a failed accelerometer.[15]
The US Federal Aviation Administration issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-18-51 requiring all 777 operators to install upgraded software to resolve the error.[16]
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the stories about possible turn-back, sightings over the Straits Of Malacca etc are just that... stories. They are qualified by "believed to have", "think that" etc etc.
We are still where we were last Saturday morning - no evidence of what has happened to the flight
We are still where we were last Saturday morning - no evidence of what has happened to the flight
Who said the company didn't get them?
Maybe no one was reading them, or the initial info was ignored.
Would explain some behaviours of multi-medalled generals.
Maybe no one was reading them, or the initial info was ignored.
Would explain some behaviours of multi-medalled generals.
short flights long nights
It would crash. There is nothing in the 777 systems that would prevent it flying into the ocean. If and it's an if, the fisherman are correct, and the aircraft was flying straight and level at a low altitude, then someone was flying it, or making autopilot inputs.