Malaysia Airlines 777 missing
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
I'm a notary public. What would you like stamped?
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
What's interesting about it? Are you surprised that he has friends and family who are insulted/upset that some media is running with unsubstantiated theories about the pilots when no one really knows what happened on the flight deck, who who was flying the aircraft, under what conditions or threats and why?
Last edited:
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
The fact the pilot suicide was broadcast as a theory on DAY ONE when all we knew is the plane went missing makes me want to throw up.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
That's the problem with unsubstantiated theories, guesses and assumptions made by unqualified people who really have no idea what they are talking about. They know little to nothing of the crew, don't care that they have families and loved ones who are mostly likely reading/hearing this tripe and only know that their husband, Father, brother and friend who they admire and love, is most likely dead.They, like the loved ones and families of the pax, are grieving, suffering, distraught, and want to know what really happened to them and why.
Last edited:
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Uberlike.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Worst case scenario at this point, is the plane was hijacked, but their plans fell through and they crashed...never to be found again
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Furthermore, a 777 has vanished, a modern, flagship aircraft of Boeing.
Why, is Boeing not spending many dollars trying to assist in finding the airplane (Maybe they are, just not advertising the fact)
Furthermore, one would think the US would be utilizing far more assets than they have admitted to.
If it crashed, wherever it crashed, you'd think by now, someone, somewhere would find debris of some sort,
Why, is Boeing not spending many dollars trying to assist in finding the airplane (Maybe they are, just not advertising the fact)
Furthermore, one would think the US would be utilizing far more assets than they have admitted to.
If it crashed, wherever it crashed, you'd think by now, someone, somewhere would find debris of some sort,
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Let me put it to you this way. Boeing has a team in Malaysia. That team also is in contact with the main Boeing facilities and other Boeing teams, SIMs, equipment, data, etc. They are working with the FAA, Trent RR, the NTSB and the various other entities in Malaysia and here in the US. Boeing also has many deep contacts in Washington in the Military and in our government. Frustration grew with the entities and organization and misinformation, lack of coordination, etc., during the first several days of the incident. Suddenly, we now see our Military and government and several government entities involved in the search and in the data, in contacting the various foreign governments involved, etc. The general public, nor the media, has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
Boeing does not perform search and rescue missions. They are in a support role and active in the crash investigation. They will oversee all testing and analysis of wreckage, be in contact will all contractors involved and report on their own findings. If called upon, they will testify to their findings. You can be certain that they also have in their possession, all the maintenance records of this particular aircraft and are examining/analysing them, for example. They are providing whatever is needed from them to the various entities involved. They are doing what they do historically, technically and doing it well. It does not behoove them to do otherwise. As yet, they have no debris and nothing physical to examine, provide data/info for or test. All the links of how certain actions are accomplished may not be made public and others will. It is simply too early for specific public pronouncements.
Do not believe for one moment that they are not doing many things here and abroad and that they will certainly take further and continued action when and as there is action to be taken.
Further, as frustrating as it is, the actual crash site is still unknown. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of miles of open ocean at this point. The search has gone form something the size of a checkerboard to the size of several football fields in relative size terms. Plus, it has been over a week since the incident occurred. If the plane did indeed crash at sea, some items will sink and others will be blown by the wind, some may or may not wash ashore somewhere at some point, and still others will drift due to currents.
Last edited:
Pichettet1
Well-Known Member
Pretty cool infographic, thought I'd share.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Tell me if this scenario is logically plausible.
Fire starts in the avionics bay unbeknownst to the crew. Takes out various systems at different times. First it takes out the comm systems, then the transponder. Then perhaps the ACARS system and the primary and secondary flight displays. Crew notices systems shutting down but no longer have comms or ACARS reporting abilities. Smoke begins to enter the cockpit as the flight screens go blank. Crew is flying blind as the autopilot shuts down. Major deviations in pitch and at some point, a course reversal occurs. Fire penetrates the fuselage and the aircraft depressurizes. Crew succumbs while fighting the fire, pax succumb once supplemental O2 runs out. Fire is extinguished by O2 starvation and the aircraft reaches an equilibrium point. Flies on more or less the last heading until fuel runs out, essentially a ghost ship.
What in this scenario is feasible/not feasible?
Fire starts in the avionics bay unbeknownst to the crew. Takes out various systems at different times. First it takes out the comm systems, then the transponder. Then perhaps the ACARS system and the primary and secondary flight displays. Crew notices systems shutting down but no longer have comms or ACARS reporting abilities. Smoke begins to enter the cockpit as the flight screens go blank. Crew is flying blind as the autopilot shuts down. Major deviations in pitch and at some point, a course reversal occurs. Fire penetrates the fuselage and the aircraft depressurizes. Crew succumbs while fighting the fire, pax succumb once supplemental O2 runs out. Fire is extinguished by O2 starvation and the aircraft reaches an equilibrium point. Flies on more or less the last heading until fuel runs out, essentially a ghost ship.
What in this scenario is feasible/not feasible?
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Last time that was tried Twitter was blowing up with noise complaints. I think a 777 would be a bit louder than a couple of Blackhawks.
After reading the exchange between @inigo88 and @Pilot Fighter I am convinced the simplest answer to the whole SATCOM question. It's all PFM.
brent p h
Well-Known Member
That's obvious.... my interest was sparked by the fact that this guy did not fit the "suicidal pilot" theory that has been portrayed in the media. He even flew the identical aircraft at home as evidenced in the background 4 monitor display. FSX.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
You never stated any of that in your original post did you?
So no, what you are stating now as "your interest", was not in your original post at all or anything even remotely similar. And his SIM You Tube videos have been on the net for years and well known, publicized and currently reported by the media for several days now.
Last edited:
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Yes, but vast parts of both countries are unoccupiedLast time that was tried Twitter was blowing up with noise complaints. I think a 777 would be a bit louder than a couple of Blackhawks.
After reading the exchange between @inigo88 and @Pilot Fighter I am convinced the simplest answer to the whole SATCOM question. It's all PFM.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Based on what exactly? By whom, where would the aircraft be on land and intact spotted/detected by no one/no radar, and for what reasons/motives and what is such an entity waiting for? Are they feeding the hundreds of pax and crew, letting them have liquids and allowing them to use the lavs which must be overflowing by now too? And all the residents nearby this location and employees of such a facility are all in on this as well? Bejebus!
The aircraft has not vanished. It simply has not been located yet.
Last edited:
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Based on the 3 facts I posted on the other page, which is all you or I know as 100% fact, how do you come to this conclusion?
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
"some reason". lol
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
As some might think my thoughts about ACARS data logging are somewhat obtuse I'll share some recent experiences I've had with data logging.
I am working with a client in the oil services industry. We are using an off-the-shelf product to test the composition of accumulated gases in storage tanks.
The hardware is placed in a tank and logs data for up to 30 days. Afterwards, we pull the unit and download the data. The data is expressed in charts and graphs.
Over time, we had questions about the data we were generating. We learned that the sampling rate wasn't quick enough to accurately record brief spikes AND we saw that sometimes the device choked and got stuck on one gas and not the others. One reason we didn't notice it earlier was that we were interested in the presence of one gas as a percentage. Since the levels of other gases were changing, the percentage of the one gas we were interested in was continuing to change. It took awhile for us to realize what was happening as it was stuck on a level that made sense. Also, the maker didn't understand there were actually two samplings going on. The sensor was sampling the environment at a certain rate and the device was sampling the data collected by the sensor at a certain rate. Nobody at the manufacturer actually knew how their device worked, the original engineer was long gone and no customers were complaining.
How does this apply to this case? Data is not reality, it is a modeling of reality. The data doesn't always tell you what you think it is telling you. It is usually a simplification, an abstraction.
In the case of ACARS, we KNOW that a plane is flying if we are getting engine and location data, that's pretty obvious. If we have data that says an aircraft is in stand-by mode, it is fair to ask if that data is accurate. All the hardware could be working fine and a programming error could result in erroneous data. It happens. I can give examples of it happening on military aircraft where a malfunction was not recognized because the bad data was reasonable and had been accurate before failure.
I am working with a client in the oil services industry. We are using an off-the-shelf product to test the composition of accumulated gases in storage tanks.
The hardware is placed in a tank and logs data for up to 30 days. Afterwards, we pull the unit and download the data. The data is expressed in charts and graphs.
Over time, we had questions about the data we were generating. We learned that the sampling rate wasn't quick enough to accurately record brief spikes AND we saw that sometimes the device choked and got stuck on one gas and not the others. One reason we didn't notice it earlier was that we were interested in the presence of one gas as a percentage. Since the levels of other gases were changing, the percentage of the one gas we were interested in was continuing to change. It took awhile for us to realize what was happening as it was stuck on a level that made sense. Also, the maker didn't understand there were actually two samplings going on. The sensor was sampling the environment at a certain rate and the device was sampling the data collected by the sensor at a certain rate. Nobody at the manufacturer actually knew how their device worked, the original engineer was long gone and no customers were complaining.
How does this apply to this case? Data is not reality, it is a modeling of reality. The data doesn't always tell you what you think it is telling you. It is usually a simplification, an abstraction.
In the case of ACARS, we KNOW that a plane is flying if we are getting engine and location data, that's pretty obvious. If we have data that says an aircraft is in stand-by mode, it is fair to ask if that data is accurate. All the hardware could be working fine and a programming error could result in erroneous data. It happens. I can give examples of it happening on military aircraft where a malfunction was not recognized because the bad data was reasonable and had been accurate before failure.