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

171–180 of 224 posts

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#171

Post by 3327 »

wikiburner wrote: post #8

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…

"By signing off from Malaysian airspace at 1.19 a.m. on March 8 with a casual "all right, good night," rather than the crisp radio drill advocated in pilot training, a person now believed to be the co-pilot gave no hint of anything unusual.

Two minutes later, at 1.21 a.m. local time, the transponder - a device identifying jets to ground controllers - was turned off in a move that experts say could reveal a careful sequence."

-Reuters

Turning off the transponder two minutes after communication and turning IMO rules out fire. It would have had to take place in a 2 minute window.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#173

Post by prodev42 »

johnw wrote: 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...

there was also rumor captain grow up around that airport. i suggest research his childhood schools if possible.

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#176

Post by hindsightbias »

bedhead wrote: post #162
hindsightbias wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An Egypt Air 777-200 had a cockpit fire on the ground. This would complicate a reponse. http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0 Presuming they lost the battle, instrumentation/ap would drop out. Eventually, the fire would burn through the cockpit (see pictures above) and depressurize the a/c. Fire would then go out. Engines would keep going. Eventually, someone will correlate wind directions with any require…

Interesting. Except is it really possible for a 777 that just had its entire avionics destroyed by a fire and a total loss of cabin pressure at 35k feet to maintain relatively level and straight flight? If the fire is really that catastrophic, I would reckon the plane would crash soon thereafter. It would also be unprecedented (as far as I know) to have the crew aware of a fire and unable to alert the ground (either…

Well, didn't maintain level and straight flight. The damage would probably not be as bad as Egypt Air, because any small hole would immediately depressurize the a/c, whereas EA kept burning for 20 minutes.

Cockpit window heater fires:

http://archive.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/06/us-boeing...

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#177

Post by VMG »

tlrobinson wrote: post #137
Arjuna wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only way we'll get to understand that is by finding the black box which of course would explain the whole thing anyway." I appreciate that there are technical challenges and costs associated with the following idea, but it would be quite an interesting project to create a system that would transmit Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information to a ground location. Off the top of my head, it would need to be flexible,…

Alternatively, why don't planes have floating EPIRBs ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon ) or even floating black boxes? They could be attached to one or more points on the plane where they're likely to be released if wreckage sinks.

also what about including some kind of traceable liquid that can be detected by search ships or satellites?

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#178

Post by jotux »

bedhead wrote: post #69

In every instance of cabin fire, even ones where the fires spread extremely quickly and are eventually fatal such as SwissAir and ValueJet, the crew contacted the ground. And this was the case even when co-pilots were literally out of their seats actually fighting the fires. Yet every single time the ground was alerted about an emergency. This is what veteran pilots do. Also, for a fire to destroy the multiple electr…

>In every instance of cabin fire ... the crew contacted the ground.

How many documented cabin fires have there been?

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#179

Post by gonzo »

ekianjo wrote: post #110
Gravityloss wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard arguments from private pilots that say exactly the opposite: The experienced pilots have so much "Nintendo time" flying just on autopilot that they are more likely to commit such gross flying mistakes. Newer pilots still have aviation basics in fresh memory because they have recently flown many hours in small planes with only manual controls.

Well in the AirFrance case it was clearly the inexperienced pilot who drove the plane to the water. The commander was sleeping at the time and when he came back in the cockpit he grasped what was happening but it was too late.

s/commander/captain/

s/drove/stalled/

s/sleeping at the time/had just retired to the crew cabin, taking a rest/

he was only out of the cockpit for 18 minutes.

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e3.en/pdf/f-cp0906...

Re: MH370: A different point of view

#180

Post by dandelany »

stcredzero wrote: post #169
rdsubhas wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, just curious though, in case there was a fire and they turned the transponders off on purpose - How difficult would it be to just say "Fire" or something over the wire before turning things off? Does abruptly going cold and switching everything off make sense? Would a fire hit so fiercely that the very first response would be to turn everything off without any communication?

Airplane fires can and have been so fierce, that pilots barely have time to utter a single sentence to ground control after they know they're in trouble and before they lose consciousness. It really is that time critical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

You cite a source but it doesn't really back up your claims. "Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest available airport."

I have yet to hear of a single midair aircraft fire that was not reported over comms.

Post reply on HN