The Briefing Room
General Category => World News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 23, 2014, 01:31:57 am
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586308/Missing-jet-WAS-carrying-highly-flammable-lithium-batteries-CEO-Malaysian-Airlines-finally-admits-dangerous-cargo.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586308/Missing-jet-WAS-carrying-highly-flammable-lithium-batteries-CEO-Malaysian-Airlines-finally-admits-dangerous-cargo.html)
Missing jet WAS carrying highly flammable lithium batteries: CEO of Malaysian Airlines finally admits to dangerous cargo four days after DENYING it
When asked days ago, he said it was carrying 'tonnes of mangosteens'
Lithium-ion batteries have caused 140 mid-air incidents in last 20 years
The devices are commonly used in mobile phones and laptops
Classed as dangerous by The International Civil Aviation Organisation
Reignites theory that missing flight may have crashed after on-board fire
Aviation expert said it re-affirm belief that flames started in cargo hold
One cargo plane crashed in 2010 after attempting an emergency landing
Safety report said battery caught fire and filled the flight deck with smoke
By Simon Tomlinson
PUBLISHED: 12:11 EST, 21 March 2014 | UPDATED: 03:57 EST, 22 March 2014
Malaysian Airlines today confirmed that flight MH370 had been carrying highly flammable lithium-ion batteries in its cargo hold, re-igniting speculation that a fire may have caused its disappearance.
The admission by CEO Ahmad Jauhari comes four days after he denied the aircraft was carrying any dangerous items and nearly two weeks after the plane went missing.
He said the authorities were investigating the cargo, but did not regard the batteries as hazardous - despite the law dictating they are classed as such - because they were packaged according to safety regulations.
The revelation has thrown the spotlight back on the theory that the Boeing 777 may have been overcome by a fire, rendering the crew and passengers unconscious after inhaling toxic fumes.
Lithium-ion batteries - which are used in mobile phones and laptops - have been responsible for a number of fires on planes and have even brought aircraft down in recent years.
continued
-
A lithium-ion battery fire would have resulted in a very quick destruction of the aircraft.
It would not have flown for only God knows how long before crashing. When these batteries burn, they generate their own oxygen and cannot be put out, resulting in an extremely hot, extremely fast moving fire.
-
Why is he admitting this NOW?
-
Why is he admitting this NOW?
does it really matter? the batteries had nothing to do with the plane's disappearance.
-
does it really matter? the batteries had nothing to do with the plane's disappearance.
Don't know if it really matters, but I wonder what the impetus was for him to finally admit to something he had been denying, especially since - as Atomic Cow has said - it wasn't responsible for the plane's disappearance. That's assuming that the known facts surrounding the disappearance are correct. At this point, one has to wonder if anything that has been released is true. It's crazy.
-
Don't know if it really matters, but I wonder what the impetus was for him to finally admit to something he had been denying, especially since - as Atomic Cow has said - it wasn't responsible for the plane's disappearance. That's assuming that the known facts surrounding the disappearance are correct. At this point, one has to wonder if anything that has been released is true. It's crazy.
I think that he didn't consider it that important - besides which, the Malaysians have shown themselves to be masters at the delicate art of negligence and incompetence, which would tend to negative any sort of dastardly intent.
-
At this point, it isn't important because nothing indicates a lithium battery fire.
We know exactly how these types of battery fires behave.
They start slow (always 1 battery spontaneously combusting) which then spreads to other batteries on the pallet. This will quickly trigger the fire warning system and the pilots would instantly request an emergency landing at the nearest available airport.
By the time the fire would be large enough to damage the aircraft and begin knocking out systems, the pilots would have had plenty of time to communicate with ATC and begin a turn toward the airport.
-
At this point, it isn't important because nothing indicates a lithium battery fire.
We know exactly how these types of battery fires behave.
They start slow (always 1 battery spontaneously combusting) which then spreads to other batteries on the pallet. This will quickly trigger the fire warning system and the pilots would instantly request an emergency landing at the nearest available airport.
By the time the fire would be large enough to damage the aircraft and begin knocking out systems, the pilots would have had plenty of time to communicate with ATC and begin a turn toward the airport.
true enough but, perhaps more to the point in this case, such a fire would not have reprogrammed the aircraft's flight computer in mid-flight to hit those two way points, would it?
-
true enough but, perhaps more to the point in this case, such a fire would not have reprogrammed the aircraft's flight computer in mid-flight to hit those two way points, would it?
Nope, nor would the pilots have done it in response to a fire. Any flying would be manual at that point in an effort to get the plane down as quickly as possible. Even a ditching at sea at night is a better alternative than a inflight breakup of the aircraft.