khaosai

Hi,

Agreed.

South Indian Ocean somewhere.

Deliberately flown there based on the information I have read.

Not sure who was responsible, but knowledge of onboard systems required.

Hope they find the data so we can all learn the definitive truth.

The B777 remains a great aircraft and which I have complete faith in whilst at work.

Hi guys,

I don't know anything about radar blending. That's not my area of expertise. Some interesting discussions nonetheless about radar and wake turbulence.

Personally I don't think the aircraft shadowed another aircraft as I trust the information so far provided about the satellite pings having the aircraft route south bound.

The traffic collision avoidance system is linked to the transponder which allows both aircraft to talk to each other and resolve any potential conflict. If the transponder is off then it does not work.

Hand flown formation flying at night would be a challenge due to the wake turbulence but being 500ft directly below the other aircraft will prevent the effects of wake turbulence I think.

Wake turbulence Is caused by the airflow spilling over the wing tip. It therefore is based on aircraft wing span and will cause two cylindrical shapes of air to flow from the wing tip rear wards and downwards of which the rate will vary. The effects of wake are worst close to the ground but also more pronounced with heavy aircraft. It does occur at high altitude too. I experienced the autopilot on a B744 disconnect due to a wake encounter generated by an Airbus 330.

On the navigation display you have a wind direction and speed readout so you could use that to gauge approximately where the wake turbulence was going to be. Fly slightly upwind until directly below the other aircraft then manoeuvre into position.

Unlikely scenario, but the tools are all there to achieve it and would be more than manageable by someone with experience in aviation and familiarity with the B777.

F30muri... You said...

"I said utter impossibility for the place to arrive in Pakistan "UNDETECTED." The good general has been all over the place on this point from US knows and is a cover up, Pakistan knows and is a cover up (would require NON-Taliban Pakistan cover up here though . . .) to saying he had a Boeing sources, then backing off and saying he did not have a Boeing source but he read about a Boeing source on the Internet website Lignet and on and on and on."

I could also ask you how they cannot Find Plane now... Is it because it flew somewhere... Undetected???

Thought that was utterly Impossible!

Buddy, I am trying real hard to understand what you are saying, but it is much easier to go undetected over very remote parts of the Oceans than it is to go undetected over land. The shadow thing with a 777 is silly movie stuff. I believe flying below radar would have used too much fuel to make it to Northwest Pakistan, caused tremendous stress on the air frame and a 777 flying that low would have been seen by lots of people. Plus, it was dark . . .

Hi,

The shadow idea would be relatively straight forward to achieve. The problem would then be when the aircraft appears out of the shadow.

I don't think this is what happened. It must be somewhere in the rather large area they are searching.

Some big changes will be made in the industry due this missing aircraft.

I respect your opinion and you are certainly more knowledgeable than I. Most pilots with whom I spoke said sounds easy in theory, but not so in application with a 777. The Eglin guys in my building last week did seem a bit more confident about it being possible. Do you have knowledge of this actually being done over long distances with planes of this size?

Hi,

The aircraft automation would allow this to be flown accurately whilst shadowing another aircraft. The autopilot in conjunction with an appropriate lateral and vertical mode is what goes on in day to day operations, albeit at increased distances vertically.

A few night ago I had another aircraft 2000ft below our aircraft for quite a while. The aircraft was displayed on the traffic collision avoidance system, and on occasion it triggered the radio altimeter on the primary flight display.

So flying along at the same speed on the same route but at a different altitude will enable both aircraft to follow each other accurately.

Has it been done over long distances on an aircraft this size using a reduced vertical seperation. I don't know the answer to that.

F30muri... You said...

"I said utter impossibility for the place to arrive in Pakistan "UNDETECTED." The good general has been all over the place on this point from US knows and is a cover up, Pakistan knows and is a cover up (would require NON-Taliban Pakistan cover up here though . . .) to saying he had a Boeing sources, then backing off and saying he did not have a Boeing source but he read about a Boeing source on the Internet website Lignet and on and on and on."

I could also ask you how they cannot Find Plane now... Is it because it flew somewhere... Undetected???

Thought that was utterly Impossible!

Buddy, I am trying real hard to understand what you are saying, but it is much easier to go undetected over very remote parts of the Oceans than it is to go undetected over land. The shadow thing with a 777 is silly movie stuff. I believe flying below radar would have used too much fuel to make it to Northwest Pakistan, caused tremendous stress on the air frame and a 777 flying that low would have been seen by lots of people. Plus, it was dark . . .

Hi,

The shadow idea would be relatively straight forward to achieve. The problem would then be when the aircraft appears out of the shadow.

I don't think this is what happened. It must be somewhere in the rather large area they are searching.

Some big changes will be made in the industry due this missing aircraft.

Pilot suicide and the pilot covering his tracks IMO.

Sent from my Lenovo S960 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If so, 'wonder how the FO got it.

Locked out of the cockpit when the cabin was depressurised would be the easiest choice.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Can a pilot depressurize an airplane at cruising altitude?

Hi,

Very straightforward to depressurize the aircraft during the cruise.

I have said it before, and will say it again. No floating wreckage will be found in the massive Indian Ocean search....

I don't agree.

Time will tell..... :-) As you have pointed out in another post, to turn off the ACARS system

requires a knowledgeable person to actually descend down into the electronics bay on a lower

level and physically turn it off. This is a strong implication for pilot involvement. So to me this

still implies a flight to somewhere. All available evidence does NOT point to an on board fire

crippling the plane ,and turning it into a ghost plane flying on until it crashes.. In fact the last

known radar tracks show it flying slightly west. The search will be called off in about two weeks,

and this will go down as one of the great mysteries of the modern age....

Hi,

Knowledge is required to disable the ACARS, but does not require going into the electronics bay to do so.

All very odd, and does it make any sense ? If the plane crashed... until yesterday we have been led to believe they got Pings for x amount of hours, now is stated the plane was going faster and may have crashed 1,100 km before.... so if it had crashed ? why were the engines still running/sending a ping ? = must have still been running at least 1 hours after possible crash

each report get more confusing...... 20 days and no one knows if the plane did crash into the sea or not.

I believe the times of the pings are not disputed - however I would like to see the details behind the past (incomplete) ping.

The arcs themselves are based on the latency (time between ping send and receive) to the actual satellite visible to the plane's antenna.

The same calculation enabled the engineers at Inmarsat to determine that the plane had crossed the equator - hence the southern arc

Boeing have looked at the available data from ACARS and other systems until the handover to Vietnamese ATC and have determined that the plane was burning fuel at a high rate during its initial flight - probably due to head wind.

Using that information to calculate the remaining fuel coupled with the remaining flight time based on the pings it has determined a shorter range.

I would say that all this is based on minimal data........

Hi,

The aircraft would have been burning more fuel during the initial part of the flight whilst it was climbing to altitude. That would be more likely than the headwind case. The winds are not that strong, even at altitude in this region at this time of the year. Another reason for higher fuel burn is due to the heavier aircraft weight during the initial part of the flight.

Today I worked out some more approximate calculations and assume the aircraft did indeed travel over Penang then head north west bound.

Fuel on board at push back 54 tons. 20 minutes of taxi fuel is 600kg. Climb to 35000ft will use approx 5 tons.

Distance from Kuala Lumpur to last know position of Igari is approx 275 miles. Fuel used from take off to position Igari approx 7 tons and time taken approx 35 mins.

So over last known position, which is waypoint Igari, the aircraft would have onboard approx 46 tons of fuel. I used 1 ton for taxi fuel.

From Igari to overhead Penang then heading West North West to a waypoint where I assumed it could then turn south bound to avoid Indonesian radar I worked out it would have travelled approx 750 nautical miles. Fuel used would be approx 12 tons and time taken approx 95 mins.

Fuel on board now 34 tons and total time airborne 130 minutes.

Now the aircraft is heading due south with 34 tons of fuel on board burning approx 120 kg of fuel per minute. Let's call it another 300 minutes airborne and a further 2400 nautical miles traveled.

Total time since departure of just over 7 hours. How does this match up with the satellite pings ?

This is based on a true airspeed of 480 knots. The winds in the region of the equator are fairly light at altitude, however they do increase the further south you travel. I would need to check the wind charts further south but I think there may be some beneficial tail winds thus increasing the distance travelled.

Hi,

I didn't even think this form of tracking would have been possible using the satellite with the aircraft onboard systems not working/switched off. Imagine searching for an aircraft in the area it was last spotted, when it was in fact potentially 3000 miles away. Any airline or government would have a very difficult job to disprove any form of cover up. Very interesting indeed.

Following on from Jim's post, it must be a truly horrible place to be for the crew members families with some of the finger pointing going on. I really hope the crew are not involved but it's an avenue the investigators will have to travel down.

Hi,

Regarding the cockpit voice recorder, it cannot be switched off by the pilots. It can only be erased and needs to be on the ground with the parking brake set. On the 777, it will record continuously, but only store the last two hours or flight. It therefore may or may not contain valuable information if found.

The satellite company have done a great job in narrowing down the search area, however it's still a difficult task ahead to find the wreckage. They cannot give up on the search for the data. They owe it to the families, the public and the industry.

Fire is the biggest threat to the industry as far as I am concerned, but what could possibly incapacitate a crew for 7 plus hours but allow the aircraft to continue flying ?

Fire, smoke or fumes in the flight deck will have both pilots immediately put on the oxygen masks. The autopilot will remain engaged unless it's not doing as expected. The aircraft will be pointed in the direction of the closest suitable airport. If that's not an option and the fire is uncontrollable then that decision becomes an off airport landing or ditching. The appropriate checklist will be called for. The crew will then inform the controllers of the situation. It's this lack of communication I find unusual, along with the loss of datalink and transponder information.

Having read the final report of the UPS crash on the outskirts of Dubai it certainly reminds us all of the threat posed by fire onboard. That aircraft did suffer from control issues, communication issues and subsequent loss of control so is therefore plausible with the Malaysian flight.

Has it been confirmed the aircraft tracked directly to waypoints in the north part of the straits of Mallaca ?

Did the aircraft maintain it's cruising level ?

It's been mentioned it went as high as 45000ft, low as 12000ft and flew west at an intermediate altitude of 29500ft.

So many variables which keep all scenarios plausible.

Hi,

Hopefully the start of some form of closure, if at all possible, for all the family and friends of those on board.

A tragic ending to what should have been yet another fairly routine flight.

RIP to all onboard.

What happened to the theory from one ex pilot who says that the MAS flight on returning back across the Andaman was able to turn everything off and slot in behind and above a Singapore Airlines A/C which was en route for Barcelona from Singapore.The time frame was exactly right. The MAS would be invisible from the Singapore A/C as the anti collision only looks forward. However he could maintain contact through his (MAS) forward looking anti collision device. At the same time appearing from time to time as a 'ghost' contact immediately above the Singapore Air flight.Radar operators would ignore this. The MAS flight could fly as far as Khagikstan on their fuel. So could have landed anywhere such as Yemen, or Pakistan and now be on the ground.

Hi,

The scenario described is plausible, but the authorities by searching in the Southern ocean seem to have dismissed it. You mentioned anti collision, if I am correct you mean the traffic collision avoidance system. It displays aircraft all around, not only ahead. You can see aircraft behind you, both above and below.

I thought I had read some where that the link to the Singapore flight had been dismissed and the closest aircraft in the vicinity had been an Emirates flight.

Ok....let's clear up the case of the Malaysian woman who claims to have seen an aircraft ditched between Chennai and the Nicobar Islands.

• She was on a Saudi Arabian flight that originated in Saudi and flying back to KL.
• She said she saw what looked like an aircraft with tail in the ocean at around 08:30am Malaysian time on the 8th. "It was a silvery thing that looked like a plane"
• She noted the time and location from the IFE monitors in the cabin.
• She claims she never sleeps on planes and spends her time looking out of the window.
• She reported it to the Saudi stewardess who told her to shut the blinds and didn't believe her.
• On arrival at KLIA at 4pm on the 8th she told her waiting family what she had seen. Her family told her that just that same morning, MH370 had been listed as missing by Malaysian Airlines.
• On her return home in the southern state of Johor, she filed a police report that afternoon...the 8th March.

No one....remember no one....on the 8th March was remotely thinking that the aircraft had diverted west. Everyone was scrambling to look for the aircraft in the South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand region - NOT in the Andaman sea or Indian Ocean. It was several days before that theory was firmed up. And until she was in the terminal at KLIA, there was no way to know that MH370 was missing.

She was that sure of what she had seen that she filed a police report. Further, for those of you saying it's impossible to see a plane from 35,000 feet....next time, look up at the skies and if you see contrails, you will also spot the aircraft and also be able to see if it has 2, 3 or 4 engines. It is not beyond the possibility that she did see something. And you can clearly see aircraft landing from many miles away.

There seems to be some inconsistencies regarding the times mentioned. The lady saw the aircraft ditched in the water between chennai and Nicobar at approx 0830 KL time. If halfway between the two points then the aircraft would arrive in KL at approx 11am. The report states she arrived at 4pm.

Could it be conceivable to see a Boeing 777, intact on the oceans surface. Personally I think so having sat there for hours on end looking out of the windows.

Did she perhaps see another aircraft, opposite direction thousands of feet below. Quite possible, as trying to judge height and distance whilst airborne is very difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy.

I can't comment on all slide rafts but the ones I have seen are silver in colour. They become more visible when the slide raft roof is attached.

If the aircraft had ditched successfully then why did the ELT's located in the door bustles not trigger when in contact with the water ?

I am pretty sure the Indian authorities have made an extensive search in the Bay of Bengal and therefore discounted the report.

I have also heard reports of the aircraft heading South until it runs out fuel and then the automation will allow a shallow controlled descent into the ocean. If both engines flameout due to fuel starvation then one of the many results of that is that the autopilot will disconnect. With a incapacitated crew and no autopilot available the aircraft will enter the ocean in a very much uncontrolled state I reckon.

Read the post really fast with a Vicky Pollard accent lol

Comedy gold

Hi,

Crews put a lot of faith in the people loading the aircraft, particularly when it comes to cargo that may be a potential threat to flight safety. Each airline will have its own policy on lithium battery transportation. Some airlines may choose not to transport them, whilst others will allow it.

If these batteries are carried then they must be loaded in accordance with the information provided in the ICAO dangerous goods manual that's found onboard the aircraft. There is also a manual onboard called the emergency response guide (ERG) with information on what specific procedure to follow depending on the nature of the emergency.

Certain batteries will require a notice to crew (NOTOC) whilst some will not. The specific battery type is recognised by a specific UN number.

There was a change to the IATA DG manual in 2013 which highlighted that the packing instructions for certain types of batteries had changed. The changes affected lithium metal batteries (UN 3090) and lithium ion batteries (UN 3480)

The manual has different sections which determine the packing instructions which may be regulated, partially regulated or unregulated. Regulated and partially regulated will require a NOTOC to be issued to the crew. Unregulated does not require a NOTOC. It is therefore possible to have batteries onboard without the crew knowing, however the airline will have applied a very thorough evaluation process prior to acceptance.

As an aside I was looking at the waypoints mentioned in the information that has been shared so far. It's possible to join them up with the South Pole (SPOLE) and the aircraft would then track laterally towards that point. Obviously not enough fuel to reach there of course. I wonder if the search has included that waypoint with regards to tracking. The aircraft could have travelled through Lumpur, Chennai, Jakarta, Colombo and then into the Melbourne flight information region.

There is still one country yet to clarify whether or not MH370 was observed on primary or secondary radar passing over or going around their country heading south at supposable low altitude and that is Indonesia.

Unless Indonesia confirms they had an unidentified or indentified aircraft as in the missing MH370, then the puzzle still remains incomplete and unfortunately an ongoing wild goose chase for search & rescue countries since Indonesia is widely known to have sensitive airspace as in Aceh & Sumatra.

Hi,

I wonder if the initial route west would have been to ensure prior to turning south that it would remain undetected. I don't know anything about the military radar in the Aceh region, but generally primary radar is very limited in range. Then again you have the Southern Nicobar Islands. I am not aware of any civilian radar in this area, however there may be an Indian military radar instillation.

Hi,

My personal opinion is that the aircraft was intentionally flown off course. Not sure to the reason why tho.

The likelihood of an aircraft suffering a catastrophic event rendering the transponder off, datalink connection lost and VHF/HF communications inoperative just outside of primary radar range at the boundary between two countries all at the same time are very remote.

In addition to this, the aircraft is then turned around to fly to specific waypoints that require programming, at an intermediate altitude, minimising exposure to primary radar just don't add up.

I can assure you if a crew have a fire onboard they will first go on oxygen then point the aircraft immediately to the best option available, preferably the closest airport available. If that's not an option then ditching is a viable option. Checklists will be started and then air traffic control told what is going on. They will not jettison fuel in this scenario. If at 35000ft you will not climb to a higher altitude.

The Boeing 777 freighter main deck cargo checklist says climb or descend to 25000ft but once descent has commenced don't delay landing. This is freighter specific and passenger aircraft checklists are different. Different model, different checklist.

With uncontrollable fire you will have approx 10 to 15 minutes to get it on the ground to have any chance of survival.

Has the aircraft been depressurised to deal with the passenger and crew threat. Possibly. Portable oxygen bottles will provide oxygen to the cabin crew. The capacity of these bottles is approx 300 litres giving just over 2.5 hours of oxygen in low flow mode. High flow mode will provide oxygen for approx 1hr 15 mins.

Has the aircraft then made some sort of effort to ditch successfully. Possibly. The ditching drill has the crew close both outflow valves to enable it to remain afloat if possible. You could however leave the outflow valves open to enable it to sink faster.

Pure conjecture on my part of course. The aircraft flying at 29500ft and then flying to specific waypoints don't seem to indicate a time critical event occurred on board.

the black box will tell everything that happened , thats if the man at the controls had anybody to talk to in the cockpit ,otherwise it could be blank with just engine noises ,we wait and see the mindbending outcome to the saga

There are 2 black boxes, ( orange )

F D R flight data recorder records all movements of the aircraft hight, speed ect ect

C V R cockpit voice recorder records what goes on in the cockpit.

I think it unlikely that these will be found.

Flight data,if found, will be the key to finding out the cause of this missing aircraft. The voice recorder will continually record via a microphone in the overhead panel, but will only keep the last 2 hours of flight. It can be deleted, but only whilst on the ground with the brakes set.

If this is the approximate location of the aircraft then I think they will find the data.

I am praying they find some survivors. Amidst all of this government mismanagment, wouldn't it be a frank miracle to find someone alive.

Lets focus the discussion of this thread on that possibility for a moment. For those amongst you with knowledge of the safety equipment...rafts etc on board a similar plane, and the provisions therein. Is there any chance whatsoever that someone is out there somewhere, still patiently waiting for the circus to find them.

Hi,

The equipment on board is geared towards survival. Lots of it available. Almost two weeks in then lack of drinking water would be a big threat. Controlled ditching then adrift for two weeks then chances are stacked against you. Onboard emergency emergency locators only work for 2 to 3 days. It's not a busy air route.

That's a fairly large part sighted in the water. Nose of the aircraft to the wing leading edge is approx 70 ft long. Wing trailing edge to tail is approx 90 ft. You also have approx 90ft of wing either side of the fuselage.

Hi,

Fingers crossed for the families that they have found it.

I think that shadowing another plane would be difficult. It would have to be very, very well planned. With communication cut off, how would they find the other plane to shadow it?

Hi,

The shadowing part would be relatively easy using the onboard automation. I agree regarding the planning, it would have to be very well planned.

Regarding how to find the other aircraft, on occasion you will hear the controller ask aircraft for an expected time of arrival (ETA) over a specific waypoint, often the boundary between countries. A pilot in another aircraft could then enter that waypoint into the flight management computer of his aircraft and enter the same time to be at that waypoint. You can even enter the time to within seconds, not just to the minute. Another technique, however very very unlikely would be to target the other aircraft using the weather radar by adjusting the tilt function.

My thoughts are still to the aircraft heading south until fuel exhaustion.

This guy may have a resonable theory on the mystery:

»Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?« (Edit: as radar shadow from Andeman Sea to ???)

http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

Keith Ledgerwoods theory posted in above link does make some sense, using another B777 as radar shadow en-route to Europe (see the map plotting in the Blog).

The southbound route to nowhere does not make sense, whilst a northbound route do make sense for hi-jacking or whatever, passing countries like Iran, or as Keith Ledgerwood says: »There are several locations along the flight path of SIA68 where it could have easily broken contact and flown and landed in Xingjian province, Kyrgyzstan, or Turkmenistan. Each of these final locations would match up almost perfectly with the 7.5 hours of total flight time and trailing SIA68. In addition, these locations are all possibilities that are on the ARC and fit with the data provided by Inmarsat from the SATCOMs last known ping at 01:11UTC.«

There were 2 Iranians onboard on false passports stolen in Phuket. Did they use a cover-up with the story of seeking asylum, one heading for Copenhagen intending to seeks asylum in Malmo, Sweden; the other heading for asylum somewhere else in Europe (cannot by hearth remember exactly where)?

Were the cockpit crew and the aircraft engineer part of it or did somebody else get into the cockpit during the first part of the flight?

In the beginning the news media talked about 5 passengers who did not board the flight and their luggage were removed, but we never heard anything more about this, which is little mysterious.

Do any of the passengers or cargo on MD370 have any interest for third party; like the mentioning of the group of IT-specialist and others, and when did they book or plan the flight?

Do any state, country or group in these potential landing places have any interest in hijacking a B777 and the load, passengers and/or cargo?

IMO there are many good reasons for the radar-shadow theory

(Edit: typo)

I agree, I think this is a brilliant theory. It would certainly explain how the plane was able to evade

radar. Wonder if anyone knows how physically close two planes would have to be to show up as one

radar blip.The Maldives sighting puts a bit of a hole into this theory, but that one seems a bit weak. A few islanders saying they saw a low flying plane 11 days ago, with one person saying it was so low

they could see the doors on it. So if shown a photo, I would certainly think they could also identify the livery of Malaysia Air.......

I also wonder if the pilot is able to turn off oxygen for the passengers and kill them. Whatever plan the captain has, dealing with a couple hundred really angry passengers would

have to make it a lot harder......I suspect the airline manufacturers are following this story closely,

with the concept of how to protect the plane against a rogue captain.

The five missing passengers story was later retracted by Malaysian Air, and their position now

is that everyone boarded.

Hi,

I agree, it's a brilliant theory and remarkable if it turns out to be true. I have no idea how close the aircraft would have to be to show up as one blip, but line astern might be ok. The only issue then would be the possible effects of wake turbulence from the preceding aircraft. When it decided to peel away and land, there would be a chance it might be spotted on primary radar, so that's the only part that throws up some questions in my mind.

Regarding the passenger oxygen, there is no switch that directly controls the oxygen for the passengers in the flight deck. There is however a switch that can be used to deploy the passenger oxygen masks. There are also switches that control the aircraft pressurisation, so that theory, again may be plausible.

Regarding the weights onboard the aircraft. All cargo and checked in bags use actual weights. Passengers use standard weights which includes a small allowance for hand luggage. Personally I think the standard weights need to be reassessed. My previous aircraft type had a display of how heavy the aircraft actually was, compared to how heavy the paper work said it was. The figure was generally always over by a few tons. A 3 ton weight increase on the B777, performance wise is negligible, with the speeds changing by approx 1 knot.

Post #2114 gave this link....

https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

and I went to see what the man says and read the replies. For those

who feel the link is outta date you must read the entire post and it is

quite long indeed with the last reply at 1019PM today to Mr. Goodfellows

last statement posted at 737PM today...as I pass this info here.

What I found interesting, not only Goodfellow's logic, but also this

link to a post from a Maldives newspaper...

http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062

I must admit that if one extrapolates Goodfellows hypothesis and

what the Maldives paper states then the SAR mission ain't gonna

find squat where they're looking at presently.

Plus I reckon this hypothesis is as good as any that has previously

been undertaken in the SAR scenario. Unless of course, somebody

in a certain government knows better. To which I will be asking this

question at tomorrows presser.

Some good points in the first link but some parts need clarification.

Tire failure on take off would be apparent to the crew. Vibration, directional control, then possibly slight rubber smell via the air conditioning. Once airborne the tire pressure monitoring system would indicate a tire deflation. If a fire occurs in the wheel well, leave the gear down or if retracted then lower it until a certain time has elapsed.

The 777 smoke, fire or fumes checklist is quite specific on what components to turn off.

Only one smoke hood available in the flight deck which will last approx 15 to 20 mins, but any smoke event that occurs requires both pilots to use the oxygen masks provided at each station, 4 in total.

I have a good friend,,, that's crew on a USA, to Asia flight nearly bi-monthly,,,, I asked him while he was here the other day,,,, "What's the PROFESSIONAL take on this?... what are pilots/crew saying?",,,, he says,,, the pilots were in on it,, they dissabled cabin oxygen masks, along with all coms,,,, flew to 45K,,, killed the pax,,,, dropped down, landed,, SOMEWHERE,,,, offloaded the bodies,,, (with help of course),,, blasted/removed the logos... added new ones,,,, flew it to a middle eastern country,, and are prepping it with bio/nuke, etc payload,,,, He says,,,, NOOO need for cell blockers, etc,,, climbing to 45K,,, would disable all PAX within 10 mins total,,,, then NO need to worry about anyone trying to contact ANYONE,,, after that,,,, pilots. could do, fly,, wherever they wanted,,,, The pilot is KNOWN to have been very upset about political issues,, Family issues,,,, The fate of the pilots?.... 9mm to the back of the head ... WHY would a muslim faction, do this to a flight from a muslim country?,,,, collateral damage,, the, "greater good",,,, where better to hide, than in plain sight?,,,,,

I don't think the pilots would attempt to fly to 45000ft to ensure the passengers are incapacitated. The same effect would be achieved at 35000ft within a short space of time. The maximum operating altitude of the 777 is 43100ft, and assuming a weight of 240 tons then the max altitude would be in the region of 38000ft. Flight above that becomes a challenge as the margin between flying too fast and too slow becomes so small. The amount of available excess thrust available is virtually zero when flying at maximum altitude. It's not a place to be during normal operations.

Significant changes in altitude to me would indicate either control problems, either with the aircraft systems or a fight for control within the flight deck.

As an aside, has there been any mention from the Malaysian authorities on the actual fuel uplift on that particular flight. It seem it may have been airborne for longer than I first thought. It may have uplifted additional fuel for any number of reasons of course.

Going back to the secret word that has been mentioned here that should be used between a pilot and controller. I had a look at some more documentation. The only reference I could find where the pilot would use a specific word is when it's intercepted by a countries military fighter aircraft. The word to be used when communication with the intercepting jet is "hijack"

I therefore think that from this we can assume it's ok to use the same word with an air traffic controller. The actual choice of words however may have to vary depending on the actual situation on a particular day.

Healthy debate is good online. Whether your an expert or not, it's good to hear other peoples views. I for one am stumped to what's happened, but what I can offer is fairly accurate operational information on the aircraft in question.

Hi,

I don't think the aircraft has flown through the Southern portion of China but it's interesting they are now stating they are searching within the country. The last ping on the arc that has been published would perhaps indicate it to be in Western China. I am still thinking it has gone South.

I am not sure of what airports in Sri Lanka and India the they are referring to with a runway length of 1000 metres, but Male and Diego Garcia are substantially longer than that and it's not in either of those places. To be remotely close to landing this aircraft within 1000 metres it would have to be completely empty, touch down exactly on the threshold and have a nice strong headwind. You would then need to apply max manual braking. Add into the equation it being a disused airfield with no lighting then it becomes very unlikely to have happened.

Sad to read of families threatening to go on hunger strike due to lack of information. I personally don't think the Malaysians are withholding information, but find it as equally frustrating as we all do. Naive of me, perhaps.

This cannot be a standard hijack or ransom demands would have been issued already. You can stop a t7 very quickly if needed. The issue is not stopping it quickly on a short runway, that can be done, it is having enough runway or distance to get airborne again once you want to 'use' the aircraft for whatever purpose and have refueled it etc. Agreed, at night it would be pretty demanding with no lights. Were NVG's used, if so how did they get them on board? Too many questions.

But was it night when it landed somewhere ?

The last radar contact was 8.11 am so it was already morning. If this was planned the pilots landed manually in daylight.

Sent from my SM-P601 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hi,

Good point. 8:11 where tho. If thats Malay time then maybe just prior to sun up in Western China.

Hi,

I don't think the aircraft has flown through the Southern portion of China but it's interesting they are now stating they are searching within the country. The last ping on the arc that has been published would perhaps indicate it to be in Western China. I am still thinking it has gone South.

I am not sure of what airports in Sri Lanka and India the they are referring to with a runway length of 1000 metres, but Male and Diego Garcia are substantially longer than that and it's not in either of those places. To be remotely close to landing this aircraft within 1000 metres it would have to be completely empty, touch down exactly on the threshold and have a nice strong headwind. You would then need to apply max manual braking. Add into the equation it being a disused airfield with no lighting then it becomes very unlikely to have happened.

Sad to read of families threatening to go on hunger strike due to lack of information. I personally don't think the Malaysians are withholding information, but find it as equally frustrating as we all do. Naive of me, perhaps.

Khaosai...the runway lengths stated in the OP confused me as well & I'm not a pilot but

after working this story since it started and doing a lotta reading on the T7 a usable

runway length seems to be around 7K feet minimum. Old WWII runways are plenty

within the fuel limit arc however if I was a pilot I wouldn't attempt a landing on any of

these unless I positively knew the runway was in good shape. One can't find this out

using Google Earth either...one would have to visually inspect the runway(s) in question.

And yes...the flow of info is very frustrating...try to accurately report on anything said

by the Mal MOT....tis the same line over & over.

Hi,

Just went back to the manual to have a look. This aircraft had passengers, bags etc onboard so let's assume a landing weight of 200 tons, sea level airport, nil wind and a outside air temp of 15 degrees. Maximum auto brake has the aircraft stopping in 1600 metres. Maximum manual braking has it stopping in 1200 metres. Pretty close to that 1000 metre figure I guess. Your going to generate a lot of heat through the brakes using that technique which may lead to the tyres deflating. Then your stuck I guess.