Courageous captain dealing with a cabin fire radios "all right, good night" ???
MH370: A different point of view
211–220 of 224 posts
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#212Earlier 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?
Ordinarily, you keep your plane in the air as your top priority, go where you need to go as your second priority, and communicate as your third priority. So ordinarily, I would say that's too far down your list of priorities. In this case, however, there was a communication at 1:30, ten min. after the transponder was turned off. Once you are on the radio, it makes sense to say "we have a fire" I would think.
You can't say that and not mention the mnemonic!
"Aviate, Navigate, Communicate"
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
As were the boxes on 9/11, but those were allegedly destroyed in the fire.
Well, 9/11 is a different story. Like they have found the passports of the hijackers but the black boxes were destroyed. And some hijackers were alive after the event http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm and also not forget that there are too many problems with the official story which makes it suspicious.
[deleted]
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
As were the boxes on 9/11, but those were allegedly destroyed in the fire.
Well, 9/11 is a different story. Like they have found the passports of the hijackers but the black boxes were destroyed. And some hijackers were alive after the event http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm and also not forget that there are too many problems with the official story which makes it suspicious.
You might find this site useful:
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers.html
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's from primary radar. Those altitude readings are unreliable at that range.
Investigators flew the same exact flight path in another 777 and it should have been apparent if primary radar misreported altitude +/- such a large margin at the distances observed. If they observed primary radar lose no accuracy at that distance, why judge the 45k as inaccurate?
You are assuming that the altitude reading would always be off by (close to) the same amount.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#216The 777 aircraft reports ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) every thirty minutes and it is typical of pilots flying overseas to squawk transponder code 2000 immediately after signing off from the regional ATC. If a secondary radar was not listening to the 2000 frequency it would have no record of the plane in that region. So, if the plane did go down in the 30 minute block between the ACARS transmission, AND AFTER the sign off, it would easily explain the radio silence, because the plane wasn't silent, it just wasn't transmitting & was not visible to secondary radar.
Obviously, this means the plane had to go down very quickly (because it had so much altitude) and while being a consolidated mass (blown up or shattered planes scatter debris which are easily identified). It's very possible they suffered from an electrical failure from a fire, but it's much more plausible there was some control surface failure. For example in Alaska Airlines 261's case the horizontal stabilizer jack-screw failed unconstraining the entire horizontal stabilizer causing the plane immediately dive 31,000ft and hit the water in under 5 minutes.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#217How many (remote?) airports in the Maldives are good enough to land a 777? Seems like the perfect remote spot for landing a plane! Torsten @ http://www.mightytravels.com
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#218> Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no no with fire. Anyone know why?
I'm guessing because concentrated O2 is extremely flammable and would be fuel for a fire, when the opposite would be needed. Rapid fire-suppressant systems basically work by sucking all of the oxygen from the room/space as quickly as possible.
O2 isn't flammable and doesn't provide fuel unless the oxidant is something very electronegative like fluorine. In most fires, oxygen is the oxidizer, not the fuel.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to be curious. They are using data and have sent crews out looking for the plane. They have experts in their field coordinating the search. People who have expertise in radar, Satellite Image analysis, air accident investigations, air traffic control and actual ability to fly a plane. I was merely commenting that it's funny how there is one story that MH370 may have snuck under radar by shadowing anoth…
But this whole thread is about speculating on the disappearance of the plane. For you to come here and say that is like Dad telling everybody that it's late and time for bed. Total party pooper. Nothing may get solved, but it helps us to try to make some sense for ourselves out of the incongruous facts and help us alleviate our own cognitive discomfort with the situation.
Where did I say that? I don't recall saying that. I asked why there was so much speculation. I didn't necessarily say that it was an awful thing.
Stop reading into what I said. You're getting it wrong.
Re: MH370: A different point of view
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious how idle speculation has been helpful in finding the plane in any way?
It's not, and no one is claiming that it is.
Perhaps you didn't read what I responded to:
"So you're saying the best way to figure out what happened to MH370 is to do nothing, don't think, don't have any ideas, in no way make any effort to interpret the facts as they present themselves or try to fill in the blanks with educated guesses?"