Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[P45Mustang]

Maybe somebody should have asked the pilot does this plane go to Beijing?

[canuckamuck]

LOL

[tigermonkey]

Lifted from another site, and I haven't validated the information

according to packing instructions 965 section II, only 35 kgs of lithium ion allowed for "CARGO ONLY A/C" but only 5kgs allowed for "PAX A/C"...

i am sure the capt of Mh370 will suspect something when he saw 2400++kgs of lithium ion in his cargo..

very suspicious...

Of course, this is not relevant if the batteries didn't contribute to the disappearance, but it may/does reveal that some airlines are prepared to 'bend the regs' in their own commercial interest.

Edit: I just googled this, and found this link http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/Lithium-Battery-Packing-Instructions-965-970-EN.pdf

I haven't yet read it, no time right now, so can't say if it's consistent with the info posted above, but somebody interested enough may want to trawl through it?

The reg that you mention refers only to high capacity Li-Ion aircraft batteries such as are found on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, and not to lower capacity Li-Ion batteries. AFAIK the weight limit is per package and not per aircraft.

Edited May 2, 2014 by tigermonkey

[tigermonkey]

I'd be taking a closer look in the Vietnam area.

Personally, I would require conclusive proof that the oil rig worker was "seeing things".

Lithium battery fire, who knows?

But I bet you a penny to a pound, cargo is moving from KL to Beijing everyday and there will be commercial interests attached to it.

You can do the geometry yourself if you choose, or perhaps join the Flat Earth Society. Because of the curvature of the earth, the oil rig worker could not possibly see MH370 since it would have been below the horizon. From his position, at that time, MH370 would need to be at about 60,000 feet, or at 35,000 feet and at least 300 km further north to be visible, even with binoculars..

[P45Mustang]

I'd be taking a closer look in the Vietnam area.

Personally, I would require conclusive proof that the oil rig worker was "seeing things".

Lithium battery fire, who knows?

But I bet you a penny to a pound, cargo is moving from KL to Beijing everyday and there will be commercial interests attached to it.

You can do the geometry yourself if you choose, or perhaps join the Flat Earth Society. Because of the curvature of the earth, the oil rig worker could not possibly see MH370 since it would have been below the horizon. From his position, at that time, MH370 would need to be at about 60,000 feet, or at 35,000 feet and at least 300 km further north to be visible, even with binoculars..

I don't have the available facts.

Given the doubt about actual flight path, I'm open to the possibility that somebody might have seen something.

Has this possible sighting been discounted on the basis of known position of aircraft at time of supposed sighting?

Seems to me a 5 minute discrepancy could be crucial.

Edited May 2, 2014 by P45Mustang

[P45Mustang]

Are you familiar with the CIA's history of monkey biz?

I seem to remember some tapes getting deleted. Think they were called the Watergate Tapes.

But relevance to MH370 is to be quite frank, irrelevant.

Doctored CVR coming out of Malaysia is much closer to the events in hand I would have thought.

[JesseFrank]

Are you familiar with the CIA's history of monkey biz?

I seem to remember some tapes getting deleted. Think they were called the Watergate Tapes.

But relevance to MH370 is to be quite frank, irrelevant.

Doctored CVR coming out of Malaysia is much closer to the events in hand I would have thought.

But relevance to MH370 is to be quite frank, irrelevant.

Watergate - Indian ocean

[P45Mustang]

Are you familiar with the CIA's history of monkey biz?

I seem to remember some tapes getting deleted. Think they were called the Watergate Tapes.

But relevance to MH370 is to be quite frank, irrelevant.

Doctored CVR coming out of Malaysia is much closer to the events in hand I would have thought.

But relevance to MH370 is to be quite frank, irrelevant.

Watergate - Indian ocean

I get your drift JesseFrank.

But still no debris.

[P45Mustang]

There have been suggestions of US and/or Malaysian culpability in this disappearance.

I am assuming the PRC are simply primary victims.

[EyesWideOpen]

Interesting bit of news about the cockpit voice recordings being doctored. Am pretty

sure that at some point the real story will come out regarding flight 370. And when

it does, I suspect that Malaysian Airlines will not come out looking very good...

This aircraft will not be found in the South Indian ocean, I will be curious as to how

much longer the authorities will keep up the search effort.

[EyesWideOpen]

Interesting bit of news about the cockpit voice recordings being doctored. Am pretty

sure that at some point the real story will come out regarding flight 370. And when

it does, I suspect that Malaysian Airlines will not come out looking very good...

This aircraft will not be found in the South Indian ocean, I will be curious as to how

much longer the authorities will keep up the search effort.

[P45Mustang]

Interesting bit of news about the cockpit voice recordings being doctored. Am pretty

sure that at some point the real story will come out regarding flight 370. And when

it does, I suspect that Malaysian Airlines will not come out looking very good...

This aircraft will not be found in the South Indian ocean, I will be curious as to how

much longer the authorities will keep up the search effort.

I have sympathy for these views.

Commercial wheeling and dealing or other issues may, as I have posted previously, be incidental and not causative.

Finding the truth may be made more difficult by people saving their skins. Never mind face.

[khaosai]

If both engines fail on the B777 then the autopilot will automatically disconnect until such time that you get a generator working when you can then re engage the autopilot. That's not going to happen with fuel exhaustion of course.

But the likelihood of both engines suffering fuel exhaustion simultaneously is probably zero. If one failed, the auto pilot would run out of authority, and the aircraft would begin to roll, the AP would then disengage, and the aircraft would crash.

Hi,

That's true for a conventional aircraft but not necessarily so on the B777. The aircraft has thrust asymmetry compensation which works when an asymmetric situation is detected with a change in engine thrust of 10% or greater. Rudder is then automatically added to reduce yaw and will try to fully compensate for a failed engine once airborne.

It will should continue to work with just a flame out, but in situations of severe damage it generally disconnects.

[NeverSure]

If both engines fail on the B777 then the autopilot will automatically disconnect until such time that you get a generator working when you can then re engage the autopilot. That's not going to happen with fuel exhaustion of course.

But the likelihood of both engines suffering fuel exhaustion simultaneously is probably zero. If one failed, the auto pilot would run out of authority, and the aircraft would begin to roll, the AP would then disengage, and the aircraft would crash.

Hi,

That's true for a conventional aircraft but not necessarily so on the B777. The aircraft has thrust asymmetry compensation which works when an asymmetric situation is detected with a change in engine thrust of 10% or greater. Rudder is then automatically added to reduce yaw and will try to fully compensate for a failed engine once airborne.

It will should continue to work with just a flame out, but in situations of severe damage it generally disconnects.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that would be a real accomplishment. In layman's terms, if the right engine quits, the left engine will push the plane into a turn to the right. The plane will begin to bank to the right as the fuselage blocks some of the airflow from the right wing but not the left wing. The reason the airflow will be blocked is because it isn't a coordinated turn.

If a pilot is in control, he will force the plane to .bank to the left using rudder and aerolons at the back of the wings. He will continue to hold this until he has the plane flying straight and steady, but not evenly. In essence he's banking and turning left just enough to counter the right turning push from the good left engine.

Will an autopilot do that, and keep doing that?

[tigermonkey]

I'd be taking a closer look in the Vietnam area.

Personally, I would require conclusive proof that the oil rig worker was "seeing things".

Lithium battery fire, who knows?

But I bet you a penny to a pound, cargo is moving from KL to Beijing everyday and there will be commercial interests attached to it.

You can do the geometry yourself if you choose, or perhaps join the Flat Earth Society. Because of the curvature of the earth, the oil rig worker could not possibly see MH370 since it would have been below the horizon. From his position, at that time, MH370 would need to be at about 60,000 feet, or at 35,000 feet and at least 300 km further north to be visible, even with binoculars..

I don't have the available facts.

Given the doubt about actual flight path, I'm open to the possibility that somebody might have seen something.

Has this possible sighting been discounted on the basis of known position of aircraft at time of supposed sighting?

Seems to me a 5 minute discrepancy could be crucial.

It is off by much more than 5 minutes.

Oil rig position LAT 08 22 30.23 LONG. 108 42 22.26

Aircraft location at the time of turn back LAT 06 55 15.10 LONG 103 34 43

Distance between Oil Rig and a/c : 588 km (365 miles)

The formula to use is d= SQ. root (2® h ), where d is distance to the horizon, R is earth's radius and h is height of aircraft

At 39,000 feet the distance to horizon is 235 miles, which is 130 miles too short ( i.e. below the horizon), or more than 20 minutes flying time.

[khaosai]

If both engines fail on the B777 then the autopilot will automatically disconnect until such time that you get a generator working when you can then re engage the autopilot. That's not going to happen with fuel exhaustion of course.

But the likelihood of both engines suffering fuel exhaustion simultaneously is probably zero. If one failed, the auto pilot would run out of authority, and the aircraft would begin to roll, the AP would then disengage, and the aircraft would crash.

Hi,

That's true for a conventional aircraft but not necessarily so on the B777. The aircraft has thrust asymmetry compensation which works when an asymmetric situation is detected with a change in engine thrust of 10% or greater. Rudder is then automatically added to reduce yaw and will try to fully compensate for a failed engine once airborne.

It will should continue to work with just a flame out, but in situations of severe damage it generally disconnects.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that would be a real accomplishment. In layman's terms, if the right engine quits, the left engine will push the plane into a turn to the right. The plane will begin to bank to the right as the fuselage blocks some of the airflow from the right wing but not the left wing. The reason the airflow will be blocked is because it isn't a coordinated turn.

If a pilot is in control, he will force the plane to .bank to the left using rudder and aerolons at the back of the wings. He will continue to hold this until he has the plane flying straight and steady, but not evenly. In essence he's banking and turning left just enough to counter the right turning push from the good left engine.

Will an autopilot do that, and keep doing that?

Yes it will.

Edited May 2, 2014 by khaosai

[P45Mustang]

So plane runs out of fuel, autopilot makes corrections to maintain level flight?

Does autopilot in such circumstances say to itself, I need to land this plane?

Whether the pilot was alive or dead, or whether the plane impacted relatively intact, or severely damaged remains unanswered.

Correct?

[Scott]

A post with messed up quotes has been removed.

[P45Mustang]

I'd be taking a closer look in the Vietnam area.

Personally, I would require conclusive proof that the oil rig worker was "seeing things".

Lithium battery fire, who knows?

But I bet you a penny to a pound, cargo is moving from KL to Beijing everyday and there will be commercial interests attached to it.

You can do the geometry yourself if you choose, or perhaps join the Flat Earth Society. Because of the curvature of the earth, the oil rig worker could not possibly see MH370 since it would have been below the horizon. From his position, at that time, MH370 would need to be at about 60,000 feet, or at 35,000 feet and at least 300 km further north to be visible, even with binoculars..

I don't have the available facts.

Given the doubt about actual flight path, I'm open to the possibility that somebody might have seen something.

Has this possible sighting been discounted on the basis of known position of aircraft at time of supposed sighting?

Seems to me a 5 minute discrepancy could be crucial.

It is off by much more than 5 minutes.

Oil rig position LAT 08 22 30.23 LONG. 108 42 22.26

Aircraft location at the time of turn back LAT 06 55 15.10 LONG 103 34 43

Distance between Oil Rig and a/c : 588 km (365 miles)

The formula to use is d= SQ. root (2® h ), where d is distance to the horizon, R is earth's radius and h is height of aircraft

At 39,000 feet the distance to horizon is 235 miles, which is 130 miles too short ( i.e. below the horizon), or more than 20 minutes flying time.

So potential discrepancy approx 20 minutes?

Do you have a link for this data please?

I'm assuming the oil rig worker checked his watch when he saw what he thought he saw?

Edited May 2, 2014 by P45Mustang

[khaosai]

So plane runs out of fuel, autopilot makes corrections to maintain level flight?

Does autopilot in such circumstances say to itself, I need to land this plane?

Whether the pilot was alive or dead, or whether the plane impacted relatively intact, or severely damaged remains unanswered.

Correct?

Aircraft runs out of fuel equals autopilot disconnect.

Autopilot no longer talks to the aircraft.

[P45Mustang]

So plane runs out of fuel, autopilot makes corrections to maintain level flight?

Does autopilot in such circumstances say to itself, I need to land this plane?

Whether the pilot was alive or dead, or whether the plane impacted relatively intact, or severely damaged remains unanswered.

Correct?

Aircraft runs out of fuel equals autopilot disconnect.

Autopilot no longer talks to the aircraft.

So it would have crashed with considerable damage?

[khaosai]

So plane runs out of fuel, autopilot makes corrections to maintain level flight?

Does autopilot in such circumstances say to itself, I need to land this plane?

Whether the pilot was alive or dead, or whether the plane impacted relatively intact, or severely damaged remains unanswered.

Correct?

Aircraft runs out of fuel equals autopilot disconnect.

Autopilot no longer talks to the aircraft.

So it would have crashed with considerable damage?

It would have crashed/ditched. What sort of damage it would have suffered is very subjective. That will be confirmed when they recover the flight data recorders.

Edited May 2, 2014 by khaosai

[P45Mustang]

Understood. Thanks.

My reading of previous posts suggests that it would take great skill to land it on water with minimal damage.

No fuel, switched off autopilot and no pilot may be the best way of achieving it perhaps.

[Carmine6]

Interesting quote in this article about security now in Kuala Lumpur.

http://news.yahoo.com/mh370-carried-440-pounds-danger-224000552--politics.html

There are also some worrying questions about security in the boarding area of the Kuala Lumpur terminal. Paul Miller, a resident of Singapore, wrote to the Financial Times last week describing his experience boarding Flight MH360 recently. Miller has a large metal ball in his left hip “that lights up airport metal detectors the world over…”

The security scanning at Kuala Lumpur failed to register anything. Miller, alarmed, pointed this out. The security officer was amused until he realized Miller was serious, and promised to find the head of security. Twenty minutes later, with the airline pressing him to board, Miller had still seen no response.

It doesn't seem to have been an accident that those two Iranians flew out of Malaysia. The tickets were bought in Thailand, and the passports were stolen in Thailand, yet they flew through Malaysia. I assumed they would have tightened things up a bit, but perhaps they only have done the things highlighted by that, rather than trying to re-assess everything they do.

[boomerangutang]

Malaysians querying the credibility of Malaysian authorities. I found it interesting.

Interesting, but not unusual, because Malaysians are lied to by their one party gov't all the time. Thailand is in a similar situation, though the Issanaites haven't quite figured out that their beloved Shins are lying to them left and right.

As for Watergate reference: Those missing 18 minutes of tape weren't anything to do with CIA. It was Tricky Dick Nixon who put his secretary on the hot seat, falsely blaming her for unwittingly erasing those crucial minutes. It relates to the mention above, that there are times when the general public simply don't trust or believe their gov't. The problem exacerbates when the government makes a (rare) pronouncement that is factually true, but the general public ignores them or cries 'bulls&it!'

I recently took flights from Bkk to the US and back. I have 2 stainless steel screws in my heel. No beeps at any of the check booths. If a bad guy wants to carry something flat under or in the sole of his shoe, it may go undetected.

Edited May 3, 2014 by boomerangutang

[tigermonkey]

You can do the geometry yourself if you choose, or perhaps join the Flat Earth Society. Because of the curvature of the earth, the oil rig worker could not possibly see MH370 since it would have been below the horizon. From his position, at that time, MH370 would need to be at about 60,000 feet, or at 35,000 feet and at least 300 km further north to be visible, even with binoculars..

I don't have the available facts.

Given the doubt about actual flight path, I'm open to the possibility that somebody might have seen something.

Has this possible sighting been discounted on the basis of known position of aircraft at time of supposed sighting?

Seems to me a 5 minute discrepancy could be crucial.

It is off by much more than 5 minutes.

Oil rig position LAT 08 22 30.23 LONG. 108 42 22.26

Aircraft location at the time of turn back LAT 06 55 15.10 LONG 103 34 43

Distance between Oil Rig and a/c : 588 km (365 miles)

The formula to use is d= SQ. root (2® h ), where d is distance to the horizon, R is earth's radius and h is height of aircraft

At 39,000 feet the distance to horizon is 235 miles, which is 130 miles too short ( i.e. below the horizon), or more than 20 minutes flying time.

So potential discrepancy approx 20 minutes?

Do you have a link for this data please?

I'm assuming the oil rig worker checked his watch when he saw what he thought he saw?

Yes 20 minutes minimum if the a/c is at FL390, but it was at FL350. Also, this only brings it to level with the horizon. It needs to be much closer for the oil rig worker to 'see' it falling in flames.

..and how clearly can you distinguish what you are seeing more than 200 miles distant at night. Sorry, it is just not even close to credible.

No I don't have links - you can Google for them if you like, if you wish to pursue it further..

[NeverSure]

Understood. Thanks.

My reading of previous posts suggests that it would take great skill to land it on water with minimal damage.

No fuel, switched off autopilot and no pilot may be the best way of achieving it perhaps.

If an aircraft loses power, it's not likely to be both engines at the same time. We have been told that the autopilot can correct for the problems that causes.

But if the second engine also starves out, the autopilot disconnects. Right?

Now fixed wing aircraft are nose-heavy. They carry a little more weight in front of the point of lift of the wings. Ever had a balsa wood toy glider that you had to stick a lead weight in the nose so it would fly?

So even if by some miracle during total fuel starvation the plane could get straight and level, it would automatically go nose low to maintain airspeed and stability. There would be no one and nothing to cause it to flare just before touching the water and it would nose right in. There is also no reason to think that it would be straight and wings level.

There is, if it was gliding nicely unpiloted, only the assurance that it would go nose low and hit the water with that attitude.

[Tywais]

Understood. Thanks.

My reading of previous posts suggests that it would take great skill to land it on water with minimal damage.

No fuel, switched off autopilot and no pilot may be the best way of achieving it perhaps.

If an aircraft loses power, it's not likely to be both engines at the same time. We have been told that the autopilot can correct for the problems that causes.

But if the second engine also starves out, the autopilot disconnects. Right?

Now fixed wing aircraft are nose-heavy. They carry a little more weight in front of the point of lift of the wings. Ever had a balsa wood toy glider that you had to stick a lead weight in the nose so it would fly?

So even if by some miracle during total fuel starvation the plane could get straight and level, it would automatically go nose low to maintain airspeed and stability. There would be no one and nothing to cause it to flare just before touching the water and it would nose right in. There is also no reason to think that it would be straight and wings level.

There is, if it was gliding nicely unpiloted, only the assurance that it would go nose low and hit the water with that attitude.

The trim/auto trim features compensates for this if active. The FBW even has the trim able to compensate automatically during flare out for landing.

[P45Mustang]

Understood. Thanks.

My reading of previous posts suggests that it would take great skill to land it on water with minimal damage.

No fuel, switched off autopilot and no pilot may be the best way of achieving it perhaps.

If an aircraft loses power, it's not likely to be both engines at the same time. We have been told that the autopilot can correct for the problems that causes.

But if the second engine also starves out, the autopilot disconnects. Right?

Now fixed wing aircraft are nose-heavy. They carry a little more weight in front of the point of lift of the wings. Ever had a balsa wood toy glider that you had to stick a lead weight in the nose so it would fly?

So even if by some miracle during total fuel starvation the plane could get straight and level, it would automatically go nose low to maintain airspeed and stability. There would be no one and nothing to cause it to flare just before touching the water and it would nose right in. There is also no reason to think that it would be straight and wings level.

There is, if it was gliding nicely unpiloted, only the assurance that it would go nose low and hit the water with that attitude.

Fully understood. Thank you for that description for the layman.

Sounds like whatever the scenario was, piloted or unpiloted, fuel or no fuel, there would have been considerable damage on entry.

[tigermonkey]

Ocean Shield is headed back to port in Australia. The search will be delayed for six weeks or more while the JACC negotiates with private contractors for better suited equipment to continue the search. This is reported by the Wall Street Journal : http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303948104579536953543410082?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A

Edited May 3, 2014 by tigermonkey