Live data from Hacker News

MH370: A different point of view

plus.google.com

51–60 of 224 posts

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#51
post #10

One big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a transponder was switched off before the pilots last radio contact. The pilots would have had no reason to pull the breakers before the last communication if they weren't already aware of a fire. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...

Damage from an electrical fire on board could possibly explain the first transponder going out, even if the crew wasn't aware of the fire yet.

If so, they would probably already have seen other faults as well, and at the very least have a warning about the transponder being disabled. Their last communication made no mention of any problems.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#53
post #10

One big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a transponder was switched off before the pilots last radio contact. The pilots would have had no reason to pull the breakers before the last communication if they weren't already aware of a fire. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...

Another massive hole is that the closest airport ,at the point where communication was lost, was Sultan Mahmud in Kuala Terengganu. Long runway, approach directly from sea, can accommodate a 747 according to Wikipedia. There is no justification to go to Langkawi which is on the other side of the Malay Peninsula.

Never underestimate "pilot familiarity." In an emergency, a pilot is going to favor an airstrip he/she is familiar with over an unknown one. Perhaps the captain was more familiar with Langkawi?

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#54
post #10

One big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a transponder was switched off before the pilots last radio contact. The pilots would have had no reason to pull the breakers before the last communication if they weren't already aware of a fire. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...

Damage from an electrical fire on board could possibly explain the first transponder going out, even if the crew wasn't aware of the fire yet.

You'd imagine that the transponder going out would immediately bring up a fault warning in the cockpit, though, even if the fire itself had somehow not been detected. But I suppose a sufficiently bad bug in the flight systems might be invoked to cover that.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#56
This is what I've been saying for the last couple of days.

The cool thing with watching this story develop in real time is understanding how fucking incompetent conspiracy theorists are. From confusion on how ACARS works, to the limits of radio comms, to the organization of the plane's electrical system to their complete misunderstanding of how accurate primary radar readings are at the edge of range. These people aren't qualified to speculate in the slightest.

If you don't know what you're talking about: shut the fuck up.

By default I disbelieve all conspiracy theories, unless overwhelming evidence is forthcoming, because their proponents don't know shit.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#57

This doesn't explain the zigzagging trajectory of the plane after its disappearance: Indeed, soon after MH370 disappeared, reports emerged that recordings of Malaysian military radar returns showed an unidentified track that could correspond to the flight turning left onto a westward course and descending. At the time it was difficult to assess the validity of that claim. It’s been bolstered, however, by a Reuters re…

or the climb to 45k

That's from primary radar. Those altitude readings are unreliable at that range.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#58
Sequence of events this implies when coupled with other information:

1. Electrical fire starts, takes out ADS-B transponder, pilots unaware and continue the flight as normal 2. They radio a goodbye as they leave ATC, still unaware of anything which means that a fire has taken out a transponder and they are unaware of that fact 3. The fire is discovered. The crew put on full-face oxygen masks and the pilot makes for that airport either by dialling in a bearing into the autopilot or disengaging it and flying for it. 4. They attempt communication but fail because the systems are out due to the fire

At that point, we then have a lot of things to consider: was it pilot input or autopilot that took them to FL450? When did the pilots lose the ability to land, either because of control surface damage or because they were incapacitated? In the event of being alive but unable to fly the aircraft because control surfaces were no longer responsive to cockpit or autopilot input, is there anything else they could/would do other than do some maths and work out when the inevitable crash was coming? If they could control some surfaces but not others would they use that to buy themselves more time, e.g. climbing to ceiling (FL450), or would they get low quick?

This theory raises quite a few questions then, but it's a perfectly valid hypothesis: the issue for me around it is understanding why the pilots didn't go on to make the landing suggesting loss of control or their own lives by that point. The only way we'll get to understand that is by finding the black box which of course would explain the whole thing anyway.

This theory also suggests a likely ditching or crash into the water, and if that were the case then I would expect sonar operators over a large part of the region to hear the black box locator, pretty much as they did with the Air France crash.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#59
post #43

This doesn't explain the zigzagging trajectory of the plane after its disappearance: Indeed, soon after MH370 disappeared, reports emerged that recordings of Malaysian military radar returns showed an unidentified track that could correspond to the flight turning left onto a westward course and descending. At the time it was difficult to assess the validity of that claim. It’s been bolstered, however, by a Reuters re…

Or the last ping received by the satellite, which would require a sharp turn to either the north or south after the last known trajectory. After it was well past the supposed target airport.

It's also hard to square with the fact that the satellite system was still pinging 7+ hours later. It doesn't appear to have been powered down at all, it just stopped sending ACARS reports. And so it wasn't powered down deliberately (or if it was, it was then powered up again), and it wasn't powered down by fire damage, even seven hours after "goodnight", and it wasn't sunk under water or torn apart by a plane crash within that time either. I think it's conceivable that that could happen as the result of the suggested fire accident, but it would take a very specific set of circumstances. And you'd also have to have an explanation for the other apparently contradictory information, such as the reported radar pings west of Malaysia and heading north, or (as you said) the later deviation from course. Doesn't seem likely.
Post reply on HN