Malaysia Airlines Flight Goes Missing En Route to China

[Oceander]

Show of hands! How many think that the plane could have continued to fly for even one hour, much less 6 or 7, if there had been a major fire in the cargo hold regardless of what caused that fire?

Not I!

[Oceander]

Based on this video, I possibly could see it going something like this:
Lithium batteries ignite releasing a LOT of toxic smoke in the cabin, incapacitating the passengers and crew (see prior theory about shutting down systems to isolate the fire). That one little battery in the video produces a massive amount of toxic smoke before you ever see a single flame. Imagine hundreds of those things. Once the batteries start actually burning versus releasing smoke, the fire suppression system kicks in putting out the fire before it damages the vital structure but not soon enough to have prevented killing or incapacitating the crew. The plane continues to fly on with auto pilot. Radio damage may have happened early in the fire which is why there wasn't a call out after the fact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhDnHx6umCg

This still leaves a lot of open questions we may never know or find out much later if the black box is found.

But how did the autopilot get programmed to fly into the southern Indian Ocean?  The original program was to fly to Beijing.

[Oceander]

Ok, next round of speculation:  what sort of additional safety/locator devices do people think aircraft will be required to have as a result of this event?  Will there be some sort of a master locator beacon that cannot be turned off by anyone from inside the aircraft short of dismantling part of the structure itself?

[Bigun]

Ok, next round of speculation:  what sort of additional safety/locator devices do people think aircraft will be required to have as a result of this event?  Will there be some sort of a master locator beacon that cannot be turned off by anyone from inside the aircraft short of dismantling part of the structure itself?

I am no aviation expert but I think there should be some sort of GPS locator device that uniquely identifies each single aircraft that cannot be turned off from inside the aircraft required on all commercial aircraft. This device would be continuously powered up anytime there was even one engine running on the aircraft. 

[EC]

I am no aviation expert but I think there should be some sort of GPS locator device that uniquely identifies each single aircraft that cannot be turned off from inside the aircraft required on all commercial aircraft. This device would be continuously powered up anytime there was even one engine running on the aircraft.

It exists. Has  22 hour battery life, constantly broadcasts in flight (including taxiing) Reports height, speed and position every 15 seconds.

Is not obligatory.

[Gazoo]

Ok, next round of speculation:  what sort of additional safety/locator devices do people think aircraft will be required to have as a result of this event?  Will there be some sort of a master locator beacon that cannot be turned off by anyone from inside the aircraft short of dismantling part of the structure itself?

I never knew they could be dismantled until this. I agree with your statement.

[Oceander]

It exists. Has  22 hour battery life, constantly broadcasts in flight (including taxiing) Reports height, speed and position every 15 seconds.

Is not obligatory.

22 hours seems too short to me for something that's supposed to deal with this sort of situation.  It would also have to be unreachable except from outside the aircraft and should require that a part of the structure be dismantled in order to reach it; basically, anything that cannot be accessed or turned off from within the aircraft or (perhaps this is overkill) during flight (obviously the odds of someone doing an extravehicular excursion during flight is small, but if it's doable and not monstrously expensive, why not do it).

[Oceander]

I am no aviation expert but I think there should be some sort of GPS locator device that uniquely identifies each single aircraft that cannot be turned off from inside the aircraft required on all commercial aircraft. This device would be continuously powered up anytime there was even one engine running on the aircraft. 

What about having a separate, dedicated power source that continues to broadcast after power-down, although it might be good to have a mechanism for the airline's management to turn the unit off upon a verified proper landing, so long as it automatically powers back on whenever one or more of the engines is powered up.  A little complicated, perhaps, but allows having a battery backup without having the unit continue broadcasting after a proper landing.

[EC]

22 hours seems too short to me for something that's supposed to deal with this sort of situation.  It would also have to be unreachable except from outside the aircraft and should require that a part of the structure be dismantled in order to reach it; basically, anything that cannot be accessed or turned off from within the aircraft or (perhaps this is overkill) during flight (obviously the odds of someone doing an extravehicular excursion during flight is small, but if it's doable and not monstrously expensive, why not do it).

Longest flight is 15 hours, maybe 16 if you have bad headwinds. You can't turn them off, they are snug in the unpressurized cargo hold. It is impossible to open the door at altitude. 12 lbs per square inch does not sound like much until you are pushing against it. You are pushing a small car if you try it.

Problem is, they cost.

[Oceander]

Longest flight is 15 hours, maybe 16 if you have bad headwinds. You can't turn them off, they are snug in the unpressurized cargo hold. It is impossible to open the door at altitude. 12 lbs per square inch does not sound like much until you are pushing against it. You are pushing a small car if you try it.

Problem is, they cost.

My thinking was to have the unit powered from the engines and/or any other ancillary generators on board, with a separate battery power source to run the unit for a period of time after the engines have shut down.  Anything that makes it impossible to get to it while the plane is in flight.  I have a nodding acquaintance with pressure - did a little time in undergrad in aeronautical engineering as well as civil engineering type classes in architecture.  For a square foot, the pressure would be (12in)^2 * 12lb/sqin = 144 * 12lb = 1,728lb.  For an opening that's 2ft wide by 4ft high, that's 8 * 1,728lb = 13,824lb, or almost 7 tons.

At this point, considering how many millions and millions of dollars have been spent to-date looking for the thing, plus the tens of millions more to be spent to complete the search and recovery, plus the lives lost, I don't think the cost of purchase and installation will be much of a stumbling block to a mandatory requirement.

[Bigun]

It exists. Has  22 hour battery life, constantly broadcasts in flight (including taxiing) Reports height, speed and position every 15 seconds.

Is not obligatory.

It should be obligatory and it also should be made to receive power from all running engines (with battery backup should an electrical failure occur) and should continue transmitting for as long as any engine on the aircraft is running.

[Bigun]

Longest flight is 15 hours, maybe 16 if you have bad headwinds. You can't turn them off, they are snug in the unpressurized cargo hold. It is impossible to open the door at altitude. 12 lbs per square inch does not sound like much until you are pushing against it. You are pushing a small car if you try it.

Problem is, they cost.

1. 12# PSI X 300 or so square inches = 3600 pounds of force required to overcome. Don't think there are many folks around who can do that!

2. Cost for this one system retaliative to the cost of the entire aircraft would, in my estimation,  be minor.

[EC]

1. 12# PSI X 300 or so square inches = 3600 pounds of force required to overcome. Don't think there are many folks around who can do that!

2. Cost for this one system retaliative to the cost of the entire aircraft would, in my estimation,  be minor.

True, brother. But then again, how often does a company ignore the bottom line for a few extra cents?

[Atomic Cow]

The problem with mandating any kind of "permanent transponder" is that the FAA can only order it to be installed on US airlines.  The Europeans would likely do the same (their version of the FAA generally has the same or even more stringent safety regulations) but they have no control over what other airlines do.

Also, it goes back to the whole bandwidth issue.  There is not enough bandwidth (especially satellite) to cover all the aircraft flying to have each one sending all their operating information on a continual or near continual basis.

Even then, this would not stop a pilot from taking an aircraft off course or simply crashing it.  If it happens, how do you stop the person?  Shoot it down?

[EC]

We used to have one on most of the girls.

4 position switch. Uppermost, it would send your airframe number, airspeed, heading and a few other bits and pieces. First click down, off. No transponder at all. 3rd and 4th - well, AWACS are not just decorative.

[Bigun]

The problem with mandating any kind of "permanent transponder" is that the FAA can only order it to be installed on US airlines.  The Europeans would likely do the same (their version of the FAA generally has the same or even more stringent safety regulations) but they have no control over what other airlines do.

Also, it goes back to the whole bandwidth issue.  There is not enough bandwidth (especially satellite) to cover all the aircraft flying to have each one sending all their operating information on a continual or near continual basis.

Even then, this would not stop a pilot from taking an aircraft off course or simply crashing it.  If it happens, how do you stop the person?  Shoot it down?

Nothing is going to stop a determined effort to crash a plane but at least we wouldn't have to spend several days looking for the thing!

And BTW; I'm still having great difficulty with the idea that a modern 777 can crash anywhere without a single satellite receivable ELTB squawking location data! Just can't get my mind wrapped around that!

[olde north church]

Is there anything that could have happened that could have "intoxicated" the pilots, crew and passengers, along the lines of nitrogen narcosis?

[Atomic Cow]

Is there anything that could have happened that could have "intoxicated" the pilots, crew and passengers, along the lines of nitrogen narcosis?

Not unless someone intentionally put something into the pressurization system.  Even then, the air for the passengers is bled from the engines so it is not coming from tanks.  You'd run out of agent fairly quickly as the air is circulated out.  (Yes, I know the air is recirculated, but only some of it.  The rest is expelled from the aircraft to prevent a build up of CO2.)

If something was burning on board (let's just say the already well discussed lithium batteries), it would have destroyed the aircraft long before fuel starvation.

Right now the most likely cause is a deliberate human act, either by the pilot(s) or a non-crew hijacker(s).

At this time, I think it was the captain.  He hated the government of Malaysia and decided to cause them as much harm as he possibly could.  Figuring that a suicide run with the aircraft would likely fail (it would get shot down before reaching its target or the passengers would realize what was going on and revolt) he decides to fly it as far away as possible so it will not be found, or if it is, it will take ages.  (All he would have to do is tell the passengers they were stuck in a holding pattern due to something like weather or an emergency at the destination airport.  Few if anyone on board might realize what was happening.)  This would be a huge black eye for the Malaysian government.  Remember, Malaysia Airlines is a flag carrier, wholly owned by the Malaysian government.

[Oceander]

The problem with mandating any kind of "permanent transponder" is that the FAA can only order it to be installed on US airlines.  The Europeans would likely do the same (their version of the FAA generally has the same or even more stringent safety regulations) but they have no control over what other airlines do.

Also, it goes back to the whole bandwidth issue.  There is not enough bandwidth (especially satellite) to cover all the aircraft flying to have each one sending all their operating information on a continual or near continual basis.

Even then, this would not stop a pilot from taking an aircraft off course or simply crashing it.  If it happens, how do you stop the person?  Shoot it down?

Even partial coverage, say of US aircraft, would be a step in the correct direction; the tranmissions wouldn't need to be continual or near continual - 15 minutes to half an hour with basic flight information - position, altitude, bearing, velocity - so bandwidth isn't so taxed, and the point isn't to stop someone from taking an aircraft and crashing it, the point is to make it much, much easier to locate that aircraft, even if it was just crashed.

[olde north church]

Not unless someone intentionally put something into the pressurization system.  Even then, the air for the passengers is bled from the engines so it is not coming from tanks.  You'd run out of agent fairly quickly as the air is circulated out.  (Yes, I know the air is recirculated, but only some of it.  The rest is expelled from the aircraft to prevent a build up of CO2.)

If something was burning on board (let's just say the already well discussed lithium batteries), it would have destroyed the aircraft long before fuel starvation.

Right now the most likely cause is a deliberate human act, either by the pilot(s) or a non-crew hijacker(s).

At this time, I think it was the captain.  He hated the government of Malaysia and decided to cause them as much harm as he possibly could.  Figuring that a suicide run with the aircraft would likely fail (it would get shot down before reaching its target or the passengers would realize what was going on and revolt) he decides to fly it as far away as possible so it will not be found, or if it is, it will take ages.  (All he would have to do is tell the passengers they were stuck in a holding pattern due to something like weather or an emergency at the destination airport.  Few if anyone on board might realize what was happening.)  This would be a huge black eye for the Malaysian government.  Remember, Malaysia Airlines is a flag carrier, wholly owned by the Malaysian government.

Not something from inside the plane but a failure of the skin of the plane?  As the plane travels higher into the atmosphere, the oxygen decreases, nitrogen and smaller gases seep into the plane.  The captain maintains some level of clarity and the plane's electronics/computers do the rest and brings it down to a "safer" level but the damage has already been done.

[Chieftain]

Not unless someone intentionally put something into the pressurization system.  Even then, the air for the passengers is bled from the engines so it is not coming from tanks.  You'd run out of agent fairly quickly as the air is circulated out.  (Yes, I know the air is recirculated, but only some of it.  The rest is expelled from the aircraft to prevent a build up of CO2.)

If something was burning on board (let's just say the already well discussed lithium batteries), it would have destroyed the aircraft long before fuel starvation.

Right now the most likely cause is a deliberate human act, either by the pilot(s) or a non-crew hijacker(s).

At this time, I think it was the captain.  He hated the government of Malaysia and decided to cause them as much harm as he possibly could.  Figuring that a suicide run with the aircraft would likely fail (it would get shot down before reaching its target or the passengers would realize what was going on and revolt) he decides to fly it as far away as possible so it will not be found, or if it is, it will take ages.  (All he would have to do is tell the passengers they were stuck in a holding pattern due to something like weather or an emergency at the destination airport.  Few if anyone on board might realize what was happening.)  This would be a huge black eye for the Malaysian government.  Remember, Malaysia Airlines is a flag carrier, wholly owned by the Malaysian government.

That's why I insist this was an act of terrorism.  Someone had to do too many things deliberately to put that plane where it probably is right now for this to be any sort of accident.  I figure the passengers must have been mostly asleep until the plane was so far away from land there was no chance of a cell phone or sat phone call.  If blowing up a bomb made from a pressure cooker is a terrorist attack, deliberately diverting an airliner full of people and flying it into the ocean is as well.

Muslim extremism and violence in the Indonesian archipelago has a very long history dating back to the mid 1800's, when Islam took off in a very big way in the entire area.  Malaysian Islamic extremism has its own flavor, distinct from Al Qaeda in North Africa for example.  I think it likely that both the pilot and co-pilot decided to commit their own act of terror, the "lone wolf" if you will, and managed to kill a significant number of people doing so.  The Bali bombings took 202 lives and this act tops that number significantly.

Malaysia has a lot to answer for in the aftermath of this, and I think there is ample reason to not allow Malaysian airline pilots to fly in US airspace.

[flowers]

Missing Malaysia Airlines Plane: What We Know Now

http://abcnews.go.com/International/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-now/story?id=23049543

Home> International
Missing Malaysia Airlines Plane: What We Know Now
March 25, 2014
By COLLEEN CURRY
Colleen Curry More from Colleen »
Colleen Curry
Reporter
Share
1 Comment
PHOTO: A map showing the search area off the coast of Australia for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, March 22, 2014.
A map showing the search area off the coast of Australia for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, March 22, 2014.
ABC News
Next Video Malaysia Airlines Offers $5,000 to the Families of Victims
Auto Start: On | Off

The search for evidence of Malaysia Airlines flight #MH370 was suspended today because of rough weather, but the number of ships and planes heading to the area to hunt for the missing plane is growing.

The lack of concrete data about what happened to the plane and its 239 passengers has left their families - and the world - with more questions than answers.

Here's what we know now as of now about the investigation into missing flight MH370.

Check out ABC News' photos of the search for the flight here, too.

    Satellite Data Shows When, Where Plane Went Down
    The Malaysian government announced Monday that new data, analyzed in a groundbreaking way by British company Inmarsat, showed the flight ended in the south Indian Ocean, 1,500 miles off the coast of Perth, Australia.
    The data also showed that the plane went down between 8:10 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. local time.
    Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said Monday that there were likely no survivors of the flight, sending shock waves through the families of passengers who had gathered in Beijing to await word on the search for the plane. Many family members protested Malaysia's handling of the investigation and accused the government of lying and hiding the truth.

    Search Focused on Alaska-Sized Area Off Australia

    The search along a possible "northern corridor" has been called off. Search teams are now squarely focused on the area in the south Indian Ocean.
    The current search area is some 469,407 square nautical miles, which is equal to 621,000

[Gazoo]

Was it SUICIDE? Industry expert says pilot took Malaysian plane to 43,000ft and caused oxygen to run out

Suicide has become the most likely cause of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370's disappearance, with a senior industry source believing that the plane was deliberately flown to an extreme altitude to knock out the passengers.

Shortly after the last voice communication from the cockpit of the plane on March 8 it was tracked by military radar flying between 43,000 and 45,000 feet.

The source, who wished to remain anonymous, told MailOnline: 'It was tracked flying at this altitude for 23 minutes before descending. Oxygen would have run out in 12 minutes [in a depressurised cabin], rendering the passengers unconscious.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588109/How-got-After-Malaysia-Airlines-jet-said-crashed-Indian-Ocean-look-ended-far-course.html

[evadR]

SUICIDE!!??

Sounds more like mass murder.

[massadvj]

How much you wanna bet we almost never hear about the religion of this pilot who "killed himself" in this "suicide?"  What a joke.