Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: On the river
Age: 78
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire?
Anyone posting a theory that fire was responsible for what happened to MH370 must also explain how the airplane continued flying for seven hours. When you can do that, I'll believe fire was the cause.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNCTUOUS's theory is interesting but I just wonder had the cockpit been severely damaged by an O2 fire, just how stable the aircraft and its control systems would have been.
Certainly any hole in the side of the aircraft would not have initially or later disabled its ability to stay aloft but the control surfaces are fly by wire so the questions have to be asked, in the light of the destruction to the Egyptair example, could the controls remain in a detente position exactly as they were at the time the cockpit end of the system burnt through? How would they cope with turbulence changing any of the axes of the aircraft? If there was time to handle the aircraft to turn it round, why did not the crew call Mayday a la Swissair 111?
How could anyone regain the cockpit and perform any useful function if the damage was as extensive as the Egyptair example and for that matter to the Swissair 111?
Had Swissair 111 suffered its fate an hour or two later we would likely still be looking for it given the hypothesis set out above as it would have been in mid Atlantic with, on the night, not the best HF comms, though the VHF guard frequency might have been used.
My money always has been and still is on a hypoxia situation but, like everyone else, I'm currently lost for a cause that ticks all the boxes.
Certainly any hole in the side of the aircraft would not have initially or later disabled its ability to stay aloft but the control surfaces are fly by wire so the questions have to be asked, in the light of the destruction to the Egyptair example, could the controls remain in a detente position exactly as they were at the time the cockpit end of the system burnt through? How would they cope with turbulence changing any of the axes of the aircraft? If there was time to handle the aircraft to turn it round, why did not the crew call Mayday a la Swissair 111?
How could anyone regain the cockpit and perform any useful function if the damage was as extensive as the Egyptair example and for that matter to the Swissair 111?
Had Swissair 111 suffered its fate an hour or two later we would likely still be looking for it given the hypothesis set out above as it would have been in mid Atlantic with, on the night, not the best HF comms, though the VHF guard frequency might have been used.
My money always has been and still is on a hypoxia situation but, like everyone else, I'm currently lost for a cause that ticks all the boxes.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creeper00 said:
It's the nature of a flash fire and the characteristics of today's push-button environment. Push that button and things will change. Melt that button and things just won't. It's merely the difference between the "status quo" and "que sera". A flash-fire just sweeps through and fizzles ( if you were a fireman you'd appreciate this distinction).
Just google flash-over or flashover. A flashover, when you unwisely open a door in a burning building, will kill you but it will only scorch the environment.....before subsiding as the combustive differentials in oxygenation are equalized. It's nothing like a fuel-fed fire. That's the nature of an oxygen fire in an enclosed area. While oxygen is feeding, the fire thrives and burning is less apparent than melting (particularly of most plastics). Done any oxy-welding?
Once the oxygen feed is compromised by the low-pressure oxygen hose being destroyed, that low-pressure flow's feed is no longer there past the oxy regulator's internals and so the fire subsides and it is quickly blown out by the slipstream (cockpit sidewall burn-through).
It's as if someone did a single pass through the flight-deck with a flame-thrower. It's a whoosh, lotsa melting and a charred interior. The proximity of the oxy-fed flamethrower to the cockpit sidewall is sufficient to quickly achieve burnthrough. That's why you get that blue flame at the tip of a blow-torch.
Once the fire's out, the systems' status are mostly as was (apart from whatever the pilots initiated in their early event response) .... but later actual actuation of a melted plastic button? Not gonna work again. You're stuck with its original selection.
Got the idea? Novel to you perhaps, but not anyways mysterious to crash investigators.
Try googling NASA the Apollo 1 oxygen fire. It tells a similar story.
P.S. I gave up sucking 100% oxygen after a hard night - once I realized the potential for beard-singeing after eating a greasy hamburger.
Fire?
Anyone posting a theory that fire was responsible for what happened to MH370 must also explain how the airplane continued flying for seven hours. When you can do that, I'll believe fire was the cause.
Anyone posting a theory that fire was responsible for what happened to MH370 must also explain how the airplane continued flying for seven hours. When you can do that, I'll believe fire was the cause.
Just google flash-over or flashover. A flashover, when you unwisely open a door in a burning building, will kill you but it will only scorch the environment.....before subsiding as the combustive differentials in oxygenation are equalized. It's nothing like a fuel-fed fire. That's the nature of an oxygen fire in an enclosed area. While oxygen is feeding, the fire thrives and burning is less apparent than melting (particularly of most plastics). Done any oxy-welding?
Once the oxygen feed is compromised by the low-pressure oxygen hose being destroyed, that low-pressure flow's feed is no longer there past the oxy regulator's internals and so the fire subsides and it is quickly blown out by the slipstream (cockpit sidewall burn-through).
It's as if someone did a single pass through the flight-deck with a flame-thrower. It's a whoosh, lotsa melting and a charred interior. The proximity of the oxy-fed flamethrower to the cockpit sidewall is sufficient to quickly achieve burnthrough. That's why you get that blue flame at the tip of a blow-torch.
Once the fire's out, the systems' status are mostly as was (apart from whatever the pilots initiated in their early event response) .... but later actual actuation of a melted plastic button? Not gonna work again. You're stuck with its original selection.
Got the idea? Novel to you perhaps, but not anyways mysterious to crash investigators.
Try googling NASA the Apollo 1 oxygen fire. It tells a similar story.
P.S. I gave up sucking 100% oxygen after a hard night - once I realized the potential for beard-singeing after eating a greasy hamburger.
Last edited by UNCTUOUS; 3rd May 2014 at 18:13. Reason: afterthought
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Egyptair and cologne
unctious.
An oxygen fire would burn out quite quickly with damage limited to very adjacent and localized equipments.
An oxygen fire would burn out quite quickly with damage limited to very adjacent and localized equipments.
Last edited by silvertate; 3rd May 2014 at 20:23.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNCTUOUS's theory is interesting but I just wonder had the cockpit been severely damaged by an O2 fire, just how stable the aircraft and its control systems would have been.
Certainly any hole in the side of the aircraft would not have initially or later disabled its ability to stay aloft but the control surfaces are fly by wire so the questions have to be asked, in the light of the destruction to the Egyptair example, could the controls remain in a detente position exactly as they were at the time the cockpit end of the system burnt through? How would they cope with turbulence changing any of the axes of the aircraft? If there was time to handle the aircraft to turn it round, why did not the crew call Mayday a la Swissair 111?
How could anyone regain the cockpit and perform any useful function if the damage was as extensive as the Egyptair example and for that matter to the Swissair 111?
Had Swissair 111 suffered its fate an hour or two later we would likely still be looking for it given the hypothesis set out above as it would have been in mid Atlantic with, on the night, not the best HF comms, though the VHF guard frequency might have been used.
My money always has been and still is on a hypoxia situation but, like everyone else, I'm currently lost for a cause that ticks all the boxes.
Certainly any hole in the side of the aircraft would not have initially or later disabled its ability to stay aloft but the control surfaces are fly by wire so the questions have to be asked, in the light of the destruction to the Egyptair example, could the controls remain in a detente position exactly as they were at the time the cockpit end of the system burnt through? How would they cope with turbulence changing any of the axes of the aircraft? If there was time to handle the aircraft to turn it round, why did not the crew call Mayday a la Swissair 111?
How could anyone regain the cockpit and perform any useful function if the damage was as extensive as the Egyptair example and for that matter to the Swissair 111?
Had Swissair 111 suffered its fate an hour or two later we would likely still be looking for it given the hypothesis set out above as it would have been in mid Atlantic with, on the night, not the best HF comms, though the VHF guard frequency might have been used.
My money always has been and still is on a hypoxia situation but, like everyone else, I'm currently lost for a cause that ticks all the boxes.
In Unctuous scenario the crew shut down the electric buses and then exit the cockpit. Miraculously, not shutting down the FMC/FMS and not shutting down the SATCOM allowing the aircraft to fly for 7 hours apparently on either track or heading hold. Note that upthread (a long way)there was a discussion of the Egypt Air cockpit fire and it it was doubted if the same result would have happened in the air, and, that there had been a Boeing issued requirement for all 777 to have the cabling and ties checked to ensure that there was no chafing of the oxygen supply tubing to the first officer's seat.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 77
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Guys.
It has been said several times in previous posts. Lithium Ion batteries and flash cockpit fires are both great subjects for discussion and deserve their own threads but to link them to the loss of MH370 is pie-in-the-sky.
You will need to explain how an aircraft can deviate from its planned route, which was presumably loaded into the FMS, then continue to fly on a fairly complicated route to the Andaman Islands, making track and level changes that could not possibly be made solely by the unattended aircraft systems, THEN, the aircraft decides to "straighten up and fly right" and proceed to head south on its own in stable flight for 6 hours.
When, exactly are you proposing this fire took place? What combination of damages allowed the aircraft to initially make dramatic course changes then heal itself, select a new track, and fly south on a constant heading and altitude?
It has been said several times in previous posts. Lithium Ion batteries and flash cockpit fires are both great subjects for discussion and deserve their own threads but to link them to the loss of MH370 is pie-in-the-sky.
You will need to explain how an aircraft can deviate from its planned route, which was presumably loaded into the FMS, then continue to fly on a fairly complicated route to the Andaman Islands, making track and level changes that could not possibly be made solely by the unattended aircraft systems, THEN, the aircraft decides to "straighten up and fly right" and proceed to head south on its own in stable flight for 6 hours.
When, exactly are you proposing this fire took place? What combination of damages allowed the aircraft to initially make dramatic course changes then heal itself, select a new track, and fly south on a constant heading and altitude?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gave up sucking 100% oxygen after a hard night - once I realized the potential for beard-singeing after eating a greasy hamburger.
At sea level pressure (about 15psi) the partial gas pressure of even a pure (100%) oxygen atmosphere (about 3psi) is 2-3 of orders of magnitude below that required to ignite these substances.
You need an ignition source to make it go off.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Dubai
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By "fire". Is this just a general "fire" ?
Or is this related to Li Ion Batteries ?
There would be a need for an "ignition source" in that case.
Afterall, thermal runaway is a chain reaction. By that definition there is a beginning. An ignition. (for example a battery receiving a charge).
Or is this related to Li Ion Batteries ?
There would be a need for an "ignition source" in that case.
Afterall, thermal runaway is a chain reaction. By that definition there is a beginning. An ignition. (for example a battery receiving a charge).
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, altitude is NOT mentioned in the Preliminary report except in terms of clearance and readback/report on ATC audio recording.
There are altitude ''guesses '' concerning the calculation of search area.
So, those talking of level changes or similar, please point to it in a document as opposed to often incorrect news reports.
There are altitude ''guesses '' concerning the calculation of search area.
So, those talking of level changes or similar, please point to it in a document as opposed to often incorrect news reports.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Lithium batteries were involved in the loss of MH370, then there must have been an amazing line up of holes in cheese...
And surely the authorities would by now have looked at the location of any batteries, and any possible areas of ignition that might have caused the loss of the various comms channels, but yet allowed the aircraft to continue to function for five or more hours...
And surely the authorities would by now have looked at the location of any batteries, and any possible areas of ignition that might have caused the loss of the various comms channels, but yet allowed the aircraft to continue to function for five or more hours...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unctuous:
Ref O2 fire...If you think this is a possibility, nowhere in the checklist does it say turn off the transponder and/or the ACARS, and do not talk to ATC, to include not declaring a emergency.
Ref O2 fire...If you think this is a possibility, nowhere in the checklist does it say turn off the transponder and/or the ACARS, and do not talk to ATC, to include not declaring a emergency.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, let's take the fire scenarios serious for one moment...
The question would be, is there a bus or device constellation in the 777 where
a) COM, ATC, ADS-B, ACARS routine report functions become inop or destroyed
b) SATCOM itself is fully operational, but there is no data feed
c) the airframe itself is flyable to some extent, laterally and vertically, but cannot land or has no navigational capabilities
Regrettably those who have access to 777 manuals have left this thread - and this is understandable because
a) a lot of nonsense has appeared over the last 500 pages
b) random deletion of posts
Assuming we have a flyable but partially destroyed airplane scenario JAL123 maybe the closest. Hadn't the captain selected (by differential thrust) to turn towards the mountains, but instead over the sea, the plane may have flown uncontrolled many hours over the Pacific (though a domestic flight and not filled up).
The question would be, is there a bus or device constellation in the 777 where
a) COM, ATC, ADS-B, ACARS routine report functions become inop or destroyed
b) SATCOM itself is fully operational, but there is no data feed
c) the airframe itself is flyable to some extent, laterally and vertically, but cannot land or has no navigational capabilities
Regrettably those who have access to 777 manuals have left this thread - and this is understandable because
a) a lot of nonsense has appeared over the last 500 pages
b) random deletion of posts
Assuming we have a flyable but partially destroyed airplane scenario JAL123 maybe the closest. Hadn't the captain selected (by differential thrust) to turn towards the mountains, but instead over the sea, the plane may have flown uncontrolled many hours over the Pacific (though a domestic flight and not filled up).
Last edited by threemiles; 4th May 2014 at 18:06.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 77
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too seem to have joined the ranks of the serially modded but I would like to repeat one observation in the hope that it would help the investigation, perhaps some of our mathematical types would care to comment or at least be given the opportunity to do so.
It appears to me that when the aircraft left its initial projected position near the Andamans it flew either an FMS track to the geographic South Pole or a heading to the magnetic South Pole.
This hypothesis fits with the Inmarsat proposed routes, in fact the two tracks bracket the Inmarsat based search areas.
Initially, although I was sceptical about the choice of the southern route I believed that the Inmarsat arc calculations were correct. This left my concern that the proposed Inmarsat southern route took the aircraft near to the WA coast and it did not seem a likely route for someone who wished to hide an aircraft crash.
Now, if we consider the mindset of someone who wished to simply "lose" an aircraft why not first head west to throw searchers off the trail and then head south to a desolate area and a tidy pilot would likely head due south. This route seems to be, in a way, a logical choice, it explains why the aircraft flew a track approaching the WA coast and it fits with the Inmarsat projections.
A consideration of this hypothesis may help reduce the size of the search areas.
Any comments.
It appears to me that when the aircraft left its initial projected position near the Andamans it flew either an FMS track to the geographic South Pole or a heading to the magnetic South Pole.
This hypothesis fits with the Inmarsat proposed routes, in fact the two tracks bracket the Inmarsat based search areas.
Initially, although I was sceptical about the choice of the southern route I believed that the Inmarsat arc calculations were correct. This left my concern that the proposed Inmarsat southern route took the aircraft near to the WA coast and it did not seem a likely route for someone who wished to hide an aircraft crash.
Now, if we consider the mindset of someone who wished to simply "lose" an aircraft why not first head west to throw searchers off the trail and then head south to a desolate area and a tidy pilot would likely head due south. This route seems to be, in a way, a logical choice, it explains why the aircraft flew a track approaching the WA coast and it fits with the Inmarsat projections.
A consideration of this hypothesis may help reduce the size of the search areas.
Any comments.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 49
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, it's normal that it takes 4 hours to take serious action?
From the last conversations between the aeroplane and the ground, it took more than 3 h 30 min before the SAR process was put into effect, more than 6 h 30 min to launch the INCERFA and ALERFA phases and over 9 hours to send the first search aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there should be two tracks for the investigation
the inmarsat track
and the non inmarsat track
though, with confirmed SONIC pings, the inmarsat track should be given much weight.
But some effort to recreate the flight, even taking the last radar observed ground track and extending it to fuel exhaustion would make some sense to me.
the inmarsat track
and the non inmarsat track
though, with confirmed SONIC pings, the inmarsat track should be given much weight.
But some effort to recreate the flight, even taking the last radar observed ground track and extending it to fuel exhaustion would make some sense to me.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pingology....
Further to my #10413 .......did some trig. and found that the satellite should have been on a bearing of 73.17 degrees to port as MH370 was on climbout ........so in fact they were flying partly toward the sat. so it looks increasingly likely that Inmarsat got it wrong and their chart is actually indicating the opposite sense......ie .up is towards the satellite , increasing any doppler shift .....and vice versa......