ZeroPapaGolf
Well-Known Member
I doubt if it would take much wave action at all to break a 777 either.
Malaysia Airlines 777 missing
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
I thought I heard once that slides/rafts have a beacon that, once inflated, is activatedMost of the slides are configured to be used as life rafts when they are detached from the frame. You sit inside of the slide/now raft.
Some carriers also have additional rafts:
This is more of a question for the experts.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
More from the NTSB:
"The most damning criticism of the NTSC came from the American NTSB. Normally diplomatic about the findings of other nations’ investigations, the NTSB unambiguously declared: ‘Of greatest concern are the statements … that “the NTSC is unable to find the reasons for the departure of the aircraft from its cruising level of FL 350 and the reasons for the stoppage of the flight recorders” and that the “investigation has yielded no evidence to explain the cause of the accident.” ’The examination of all of the factual evidence is consistent with the conclusions that:
- (1) No airplane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident.
- (2) The accident can be explained by intentional pilot action; specifically, (a) the … flight profile is consistent with sustained manual nose-down flight
control inputs, (b) the evidence suggests that the cockpit voice recorder was intentionally disconnected,
(c) recovery of the airplane was possible but not attempted, and
(d) it is more likely that the nosedown flight control inputs were made by the captain than by the first officer.'
Throughout the report, the NTSB was repeatedly forced to take serious issue with wording and misleading inferences. The following paragraphs summarise the NTSB’s principal comments:
A significant amount of pertinent factual information developed during the three year investigation is either not discussed or not fully considered in analysing the cause of the accident.
There was no evidence of any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions or failures. Further, the pilots did not report any problems or make any distress calls.
Finally, engineering simulations of flightpath data were conducted to determine the motion of the aircraft from the time it departed cruise flight until the end of recorded data.
No single mechanical failure of the aircraft structure or flight control systems would have resulted in movement of the aircraft through recorded radar data points. Further, there was no evidence of any combination of systems failures.
The flight profile is consistent with sustained nose-down manual flight control inputs. The horizontal stabiliser trim was set at the maximum nose-down main electric trim limit (2.5 units) at the time of impact.
On the basis of the engineering simulations, it is very likely from the time it departed from cruise flight until the end of the recorded data, that the aircraft was responding to sustained flight control inputs from the cockpit.
The NTSC report states that no reason could be found for the stoppage of the flight recorders and recommends that ‘a comprehensive review and analysis of [DFDR and CVR] systems design philosophy be undertaken to identify and rectify latent factors associated with the stoppage of the recorders in flight’.
This implies the NTSC believes the flight recorders stopped because of mechanical malfunction. This is not supported by evidence. Rather, the evidence suggests that the CVR was intentionally disconnected. There is also no evidence to indicate the DFDR stopped as a result of mechanical malfunction. The first indication of an anomaly in the flight occurred when the CVR ceased recording. The stoppage of the CVR was consistent with the removal of power to the unit through ‘pulling’ of the circuit breaker, rather than as a result of a mechanical malfunction or a short circuit.
Evidence from the last recorded minutes indicates that only the captain and first officer were present in the cockpit. The CVR also recorded sounds consistent with seat movement and removal of a seat belt. The sequence is consistent with the captain preparing to leave the cockpit.
The circuit breaker panel directly behind the captain’s seat contains the circuit breakers for both the CVR and DFDR. Thus it is evident that the captain would have been in the best position to manually pull the CVR circuit breaker at the time it stopped.
The DFDR stopped recording approximately six minutes after the CVR did so. There was no evidence of any malfunction of the DFDR until the moment it stopped … It can be concluded that the DFDR stoppage was not due to a loss of power. However, the stoppage could be explained by someone manually pulling the circuit breaker.
The NTSC suggests that the cessation of the CVR and FDR could in each case be explained by a broken wire. Although technically correct, the probability of two such unrelated wire breaks occurring several minutes apart and affecting only the CVR and DFDR is so highly improbable that it cannot be considered realistic."
As to why, when and how someone decides to end their life- that is only known to that person.
brent p h
Well-Known Member
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
We had separate life rafts at UAL when I was there on certain types/models because of their routes, it's still not a mandate by the FAA to have them on all aircraft either. The carriers can get waivers not to have them, depending on where the aircraft is flown in relevance to land/water. The slides and rafts had portable ELTs on them.
Last edited:
ATC RET 2003
No More Vectors
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
This is more a curiosity issue than anything else. I know the airplane won't hold pressurization, but to flood the air must escape, and I'd think to sink the compartment must flood.
Again, completely academic and silly, but I find it interesting.
inigo88
Composite-lover
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
While we are spinning wild yarns, many of which indict the crew unfairly, I'll join the party.
Captain plans to kill FO, during the struggle there is a fight before the FO is killed or incapacitated. Afterwards, pilot tells FA's that a terrorist attack was prevented and he was instructed to fly to x by authorities. Passengers relax.
I haven't thought about the next chapter. What's the number to CNN?
Last edited:
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
That's the thing though... air is always escaping DURING pressurized flight. Otherwise it would be an ever-expanding balloon.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
If it violently crashed there was most likely no time to deploy them and the pax and crew incapacitated.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
So is the daily pic thread.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Calibrated holes in the people tank are good.
More holes than are calibrated for in the people tank are bad.
(experience)
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Did 1549 hitting bottom keep it from sinking before recovery or was there trapped air, or both? Did they shut the doors behind them? Google-time.
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
Clearly agree. Assuming it's in the ocean be it next week or next month debris will be found on a beach and they will track the tides, winds back to find the wreckage. Hard to compare this with the Air France accident, the US hardly lifted a finger to help find that aircraft.
If it's on land one can't hide a 777 very long.
Someone did a lot of planning to hijack this plane. I'll assume they were smart enough to disable the black box pinger too.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Yes, but air can't escape from the bottom of a vessel to allow water to displace it. If you tell me that the overall system does leak air from all the seams, I'll believe it... that just wasn't my understanding.
Again, academic, silly sidebar... mostly just me wondering how long an airplane would float if unopened.
-Fox
ZeroPapaGolf
Well-Known Member
But air IS compressible, so quite a bit of water can still enter from the bottom even without an escape path for the air.