Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MH370: A different point of view

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 224 posts

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#111

Post by aurumpotest »

davidw wrote: post #26
DrJokepu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it definitely won't be bloggers and armchair investigators who figure it out. Unfounded speculation is irresponsible and immature behaviour the very least.

Some people seem to enjoy it as a sort of creative challenge, it seems, which I guess doesn't really hurt anyone (I don't envision the victims' families reading these threads). That's fine as far as it goes, although these threads always seem to branch out into bizarro conspiracy theories about the Mossad trying to smuggle the Reptilians' sacred crystals into Liechtenstein and wondering about why the "all-powerful, a…

Why don't you envision the victims' families reading this sort of thread? If I were the relative of somebody on that plane, I'd be reading every single article and thread I could, trying to keep the hope of finding them alive, alive. Surely I'm not the only one?

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#112

Post by TillE »

tom_morrow wrote: post #92
Implicated wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or the climb to 45k

one theory is that the aircraft was still climbing towards cruise altitude when all control was lost. a stall, a recovery, and a randomly meandering flight followed.

It wasn't random, though. It was flying to waypoints.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#113

Post by JelteF »

javindo wrote: post #103
JelteF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those boxes are built to be untrashable.

As were the boxes on 9/11, but those were allegedly destroyed in the fire.

Those might have been crushed by a skyscraper falling on top of them. A fire and a crash won't come close to destroying a black box.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#114

Post by davepage »

jrs235 wrote: post #91
PaulRobinson wrote: post #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 t…

While I'm not sold on the cabin fire theory, could flying to FL450 have been an attempt to snuff the fire out?

No, previous experience with fires has taught the best policy is to land as quickly as possible. Standard procedure would be to put out all available drag and descend for the nearest aerodrome with all possible haste. Ditching is preferable to cruise in the case of a serious fire. The turning maneuvers west of the peninsula are not consistent with a rational fire response by the crew.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#115

Post by tzs »

jrockway wrote: post #78
confluence wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly don't understand how unsurvivable water landings are.

This video demonstrates what actually happens when a widebody airliner attempts to land on the ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY 767s are bigger than A320s and the ocean is a lot rougher than the Hudson.

That video demonstrates what happens when you try to land in the ocean while you are fighting with hijackers which causes a sudden dip to one side, when you happen to be over a coral reef for the engine on that side to hit. Even with that, the crash was quite survivable. A large number of the fatalities were due to drowning, because people inflated life rafts while still inside, which blocked them in so they drowned when the plane sank.

This is probably not a good crash to use as a baseline for predicting what would be typical for an ocean landing attempt.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#116

Post by easytiger »

013 wrote: post #76
easytiger wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't logical motives for school shootings, yet they still happen.

There are motives for school shootings. There are motives for terrorist attacks. There are no known motives (as of yet) for hi-jacking MH370.

your logic is in a complete freefall. Someone might have hijacked a plane (e.g. one of the pilots) with similar mental processes as a school shooting murderer.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#117

Post by synthos »

jrs235 wrote: post #91
PaulRobinson wrote: post #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 t…

While I'm not sold on the cabin fire theory, could flying to FL450 have been an attempt to snuff the fire out?

That's an interesting hypothesis, one I have not heard discussed yet.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#119

Post by tom_morrow »

TillE wrote: post #112
tom_morrow wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one theory is that the aircraft was still climbing towards cruise altitude when all control was lost. a stall, a recovery, and a randomly meandering flight followed.

It wasn't random, though. It was flying to waypoints.

maybe.

adjectives used of the radar data: "inaccurate", "undisclosed".

adjectives used of the flight path: "erratic", "uneven", "zigzagging".

waypoints are thick as thieves, the odds of a flock of birds not hitting three of them are small.

...plus hitting exactly those waypoints makes no sense: the middle zig should have been skipped as superfluous.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#120

Post by synthos »

davepage wrote: post #114
jrs235 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not sold on the cabin fire theory, could flying to FL450 have been an attempt to snuff the fire out?

No, previous experience with fires has taught the best policy is to land as quickly as possible. Standard procedure would be to put out all available drag and descend for the nearest aerodrome with all possible haste. Ditching is preferable to cruise in the case of a serious fire. The turning maneuvers west of the peninsula are not consistent with a rational fire response by the crew.

The article talks about the turning moves being a rational choice to go to the Langkawi runway
Post reply on HN