MH370: Malaysian Airlines Flight to Beijing carrying 239 people is lost over sea.

  • Thread starter Furinkazen
  • 1,507 comments
  • 79,959 views
Liquid
As per this incident, as PM has pointed out, it is very bizarre that nobody had any contact with the plane if it was in an area with heavy ATC presence. Lost in the shuffle, perhaps?
Click to expand...

If there was a storm from the pilot may have gone around it and may not have informed ATC.

But these things are easy to find out.

Don't know what the ATC is like in that area.

Could be old school style of radars and blocks with plane names on them in a slider.

These days it is all computerized to help ease load on the workers.
 
Grayfox
If there was a storm from the pilot may have gone around it and may not have informed ATC.
Click to expand...
And then the pilot with ~20,000 hours' experience did not contact ATC once they returned to the flight path, has not reappeared on any radar in the region that it could have conceivably flown to, and has not landed at *any* airport, much less the one that it was supposed to?

It is unusual that the plane simply vanished. It flies at over 30,000 feet, or roughly ten kilometres above the earth. In the event that a serious incident occurred, the flight crew would still have time to send out a mayday signal. Even in a vertical dive at terminal velocity, it still takes time for the plane to fall, and that is without factoring in the flight crew's efforts to regain control of the plane. On top of that, things like this do not simply happen; the flight crew would have some idea that a problem was developing.

The only thing that could affect a plane in such a way that ATC loses all contact with it and the flight crew are unable to communicate would be some kind of catastrophe, something that could take out the electrical power and severely affect - if not destroy - the hydraulics.
 
prisonermonkeys
On top of that, things like this do not simply happen; the flight crew would have some idea that a problem was developing.
Click to expand...

In terms of rational speculation, we cannot dismiss the possibility of hypoxia. Perhaps a slow pressure leak.

In that event, the pilots are disorientated and not mentally in control and could have switched off the radio.
 
prisonermonkeys
The only thing that could affect a plane in such a way that ATC loses all contact with it and the flight crew are unable to communicate would be some kind of catastrophe, something that could take out the electrical power and severely affect - if not destroy - the hydraulics.
Click to expand...

Bomb mainly.

Explosive decompression rarely cause electrical communication issues.

Liquid
In terms of rational speculation, we cannot dismiss the possibility of hypoxia. Perhaps a slow pressure leak.

In that event, the pilots are disorientated and not mentally in control and could have switched off the radio.
Click to expand...

But if there was a slow pressure loss, cock pit warnings would have sounded and normal procedure would be descend below 9500ft
 
Liquid
In terms of rational speculation, we cannot dismiss the possibility of hypoxia. Perhaps a slow pressure leak.

In that event, the pilots are disorientated and not mentally in control and could have switched off the radio.
Click to expand...
A Payne Stewart-style scenario did occur to me as a possibility which would explain why the pilots did not contact ATC, but at the same time, the plane would still be visible on radar. It was on the verge of crossing into Vietnamese airspace, but it never did. That's what triggered the alert - the flight was passing from Malaysian airspace into Vietnamese, which would have required the pilots to make contact with local ATC, but they never did, and the Vietnamese have no record of the plane entering their airspace.
 
Grayfox
But if there was a slow pressure loss, cock pit warnings would have sounded and normal procedure would be descend below 9500ft
Click to expand...

Not always. If it is a slow or gradual decompression incident, the pilots could already be too oxygen starved and disorientated that they do not react to warning signals, or ignore them as unforunately happened with Helios 522.

Or, it could have been rapid decompression giving the pilots no chance at all.

prisonermonkeys
A Payne Stewart-style scenario did occur to me as a possibility which would explain why the pilots did not contact ATC, but at the same time, the plane would still be visible on radar. It was on the verge of crossing into Vietnamese airspace, but it never did.
Click to expand...

Is it at all possible to turn off the plane's transponder mid-flight? They're confused, ignore all the warnings, switch off the radio and transponder and the pilots eventually lose control.

But still, it's all speculation.
 
Liquid
Not always. If it is a slow or gradual decompression incident, the pilots could already be too oxygen starved and disorientated that they do not react to warning signals, or ignore them as unforunately happened with Helios 522.

Or, it could have been rapid decompression giving the pilots no chance at all.
Click to expand...

You would assume, that a pilot of 20,000 hours would know about such a tragic event and know not to ignore such a thing, as with helios 522 they stayed airborne for a due to the autopilot.
Same with explosive decompression, depending on how it happened you can get out of it and contract ATC as with AQ243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Liquid
Is it at all possible to turn off the plane's transponder mid-flight?
Click to expand...

Pre 9/11 yes, but these days I do not think you can.


On a side note, I watch way too much Air Crash Investigations.

Robin.
This reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 in 2009 which dissapeared and wasn't found for 2 years!

It's worrying that nothing has been heard so far, this wasn't exactly in the middle of the Atlantic.
Click to expand...

With that is they knew were abouts it crashed, but could not get the black boxes cause it was too deep as well as the blackspot of communications was larger as well since it in the middle of nowhere.
 
Liquid
Is it at all possible to turn off the plane's transponder mid-flight? They're confused, ignore all the warnings, switch off the radio and transponder and the pilots eventually lose control.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be. In the event that a transponder should fail, it would obviously need maintenance, but the scenario you describe is precisely the sort of thing everyone wants to avoid.

But even if it was turned off, Vietnamese ATC should still have detected an unidentified aircraft entering their airspace. And as the flight was on a commercial flight path, that should have raised an immediate red flag. They would have attempted to contact the flight and received no response, which would have been a further red flag. It would not have been difficult to identify the aircraft model from its radar signature; because each model is of a different size and shape, it produces a different signature. That would have identified the plane as a commercial jetliner, though I doubt this last step would have been necessary - an unidentified aircraft in commercial airspace that is unresponsive would have been enough to raise the alarm.
 
According to Sky news this plane has had a previous minor incident where it clipped its tail against another aircraft at an airport a while back. Thoughts?
 
Liquid
No way. And he landed that SOB
Click to expand...

Yes, but he restarted the engines. Transat 236 made a shorter glide (relatively) but made a ground landing with no power.

OT: As others have said, it would take a pretty radical event to cause an absolute loss of every kind of signal. Hopefully we'll hear from Boeing to find out if the plane was in contact with them at all, for now you just have to think it's a sudden catastrophic loss. Those are normally either a complete airframe failure (unlikely, but not impossible) or human intervention, either diving the plane or detonating an explosion.
 
Robin.
According to Sky news this plane has had a previous minor incident where it clipped its tail against another aircraft at an airport a while back. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Unlikely to have anything to do with this. The plane would have been grounded on the spot and the damage would have been repaired before the plane was cleared to fly again. It happened a few years ago, so I would not be surprised if the replacement parts had since been replaced themselves.
 
Robin.
According to Sky news this plane has had a previous minor incident where it clipped its tail against another aircraft at an airport a while back. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

prisonermonkeys
Unlikely to have anything to do with this. The plane would have been grounded on the spot and the damage would have been repaired before the plane was cleared to fly again. It happened a few years ago, so I would not be surprised if the replacement parts had since been replaced themselves.
Click to expand...

JAL 123 springs to mind, but I'd rather not consider the possibility.

What time is it over there now? It must be getting dark soon so if they cannot locate the plane soon, they will have to wait until tomorrow for more favourable conditions.
 
News saying that two slicks have been found, neither can be confirmed to be from the aircraft.

Vietnamese, Filipean and Chinese rescuers coordinating their efforts, it seems generally accepted that while there still has to be some hope this is now a hunt for a crash site.

@Liquid you're quite right, the surface search is continuing but air operations are standing down for the night.
 
Robin.
The thing is you never know how repair work has been carried out and even if it has been done correctly how it effects the entire airframe longterm.
Click to expand...

That simply isn't so on a jet like a 777, providing that a) the airline themselves can be trusted b) this isn't the first indicator of a stress fault on long-life airframes.

To be honest I'd think the most likely causes are human intervention or some kind of dramatic weather conditions. I didn't see any storms reported in the coverage, but I haven't checked what the weather was like over that area? I know heavy storm systems can build up there and it's around that time of year, but the news didn't report anything of note.
 
Robin.
According to Sky news this plane has had a previous minor incident where it clipped its tail against another aircraft at an airport a while back. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have any effect...also unless you have an image of the "damage" from this minor incident, from the sounds of the news I've read and watched it would not even be close to disturbing the overall air frame structure.

Is there any weather reports yet? Do we know if there were any hydraulic issues prior to take off or electronic bugs? These things should be looked at
 
News reporting that 2 people that boarded the flight had stolen passports. An Italian had his stolen in Thailand August of last year, and an Austrian had theirs stolen, also in Thailand, but 2 years ago... now I'm feeling like the plane was hijacked and/or planned.
 
Read those reports again. From what you say, it is pretty clear that those passengers had their passports stolen from them, not that they stole the passports they were travelling with on the flight. And those passports would have been flagged the moment they were reported stolen.

If the plane was hijacked, why hasn't it landed yet? It only had seven hours' worth of fuel on-board, which meant that it would have had to have landed sooner rather than later.

If the plane was the target of a terrorist attack, why hasn't anyone claimed responsibility? Terrorism only really works when you publicise your actions and motivations, especially considering that the plane vanished at sea at 2:40am local time, so no-one would have been around to see it.

At this point, it is quite clear that the plane has crashed. However, there is no evidence to suggest it was anything other than a tragic accident.
 
I agree with @prisonermonkeys , if the plane were in controlled flight its whereabouts could not be unknown by now.

This is the most visible time to get a message out yet no group has claimed responsibility. Some will over the next few days anyway but normally the real terrorists already have something recorded.

I saw somewhere that a 'flight tracking' site recorded a drop of 200m and a 'sudden' change in heading. Given the intervals of transmission I took 'sudden' to mean 'significant', but I've seen no follow-up to that angle and can't find the site now.

The military tracked the plane into the sea, or so I read last night, presumably they'll have a rough rate-of-descent, that would clearly be telling about the flyability of the plane.

The cause so far would seem most likely to be catastrophic failure of the aircraft.
 
An oil slick has been spotted in the sea, and the Vietnamese are deploying their navy to search the area, but they have no idea what caused the slick.
LMSCorvetteGT2
Do we know if there were any hydraulic issues prior to take off or electronic bugs? These things should be looked at
Click to expand...
That's part of the problem. The plane vanished without a trace, and without any radio transmissions. If there were any problems serious enough to manifest in an accident at take-off, the plane would have been grounded. If they had developed during the flight, the crew would have notified ATC, who would have monitored the situation and started exploring possible sites for an emergency landing. But no such messages went out. Whatever happened, it happened quickly. There are reports that the plane lost 200 meters in altitude and veered off it's flight path, at which point the beacon cut out. Authorities will need the plane's black box recorder to determine what happened.
 
prisonermonkeys
That's part of the problem. The plane vanished without a trace, and without any radio transmissions. If there were any problems serious enough to manifest in an accident at take-off, the plane would have been grounded.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily if there was an issue prior to take off and the plane was worked on to solve the issue they delaying the flight it could come back after take off.


If they had developed during the flight, the crew would have notified ATC, who would have monitored the situation and started exploring possible sites for an emergency landing. But no such messages went out.
Click to expand...

Also not true, if the flight crew felt it was nothing to worry about they don't report in, especially if was something that was taken care of after take off as I said above and then re-manifested in flight

Whatever happened, it happened quickly. There are reports that the plane lost 200 meters in altitude and veered off it's flight path, at which point the beacon cut out. Authorities will need the plane's black box recorder to determine what happened.
Click to expand...

This I agree with, but I only asked because usually new agencies are better about getting every possible detail up to the moment of the incident. This time isn't the case as little is known so I had to ask.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Also not true, if the flight crew felt it was nothing to worry about they don't report in, especially if was something that was taken care of after take off as I said above and then re-manifested in flight
Click to expand...
If it was something serious enough that it could remanifest just two hours after take-off and bring the plane down, it never would have been cleared pre-flight inspection.
 
prisonermonkeys
If it was something serious enough that it could remanifest just two hours after take-off and bring the plane down, it never would have been cleared pre-flight inspection.
Click to expand...

the issue could have been bigger than they thought, and accidentally cleared it's called human error, also we don't have a full record of the plane in the recent years, do we? If so that might help explain things. The more questionable is the fact that none of the various communication systems on the plane for such an incident have signaled where the plane went down.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
the issue could have been bigger than they thought, and accidentally cleared it's called human error, also we don't have a full record of the plane in the recent years, do we? If so that might help explain things. The more questionable is the fact that none of the various communication systems on the plane for such an incident have signaled where the plane went down.
Click to expand...

The systems on a modern airliner don't just fail all in one go, there has to be a catastrophic physical failure... and that has to be BIG for absolutely nothing to be broadcast.

The AF plane that went down in the Atlantic was talking to the factory all the way down to the water, even if it had exploded in mid-air the transmitters in the nose and tail (each independently powered) would have continued their chatter. The Boeing systems, while laid out differently, are very similar to the Airbus in concept - partly due to legislation.

Once an aircraft has enough momentum and lift to attain controlled level flight it takes quite a lot to catastrophically disrupt that, and to do it without any electronic transmission after the primary event is very unusual on a plane of that purpose and class.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
The more questionable is the fact that none of the various communication systems on the plane for such an incident have signaled where the plane went down.
Click to expand...
All of these systems are electrically-powered. If something were to take out that power supply, they would be useless.
 
prisonermonkeys
All of these systems are electrically-powered. If something were to take out that power supply, they would be useless.
Click to expand...

To de-power every transmission device would require an event that disastrously affected the full plane though, at the very least if the under-fuselage were intact the emergency system would start trying to drop the air generator and broadcast automatic maydays, it only needs a few revs to have enough power to send. There are all the other remote monitoring systems too, most of them chatter at some point or other.

There's another way of looking at it though; what if it was transmitting but in that part of the world no one was listening to anything other than the nav/com?
 
prisonermonkeys
All of these systems are electrically-powered. If something were to take out that power supply, they would be useless.
Click to expand...

...PM, you're someone that works with the english language correct? I'm someone that has interned and studies in the Aerospace Engineering field, I know how the systems work, just as you know how your career field works. It's condescending to answer in the way you have especially since it's obvious electrical systems are powered by electric...

Clearly you don't understand fully how such communication systems operate even in the occurrence of electrical failure.
TenEightyOne
The systems on a modern airliner don't just fail all in one go, there has to be a catastrophic physical failure... and that has to be BIG for absolutely nothing to be broadcast.
Click to expand...

Exactly hence why I'm quite curious what happened since this is all quite strange.

The AF plane that went down in the Atlantic was talking to the factory all the way down to the water, even if it had exploded in mid-air the transmitters in the nose and tail (each independently powered) would have continued their chatter. The Boeing systems, while laid out differently, are very similar to the Airbus in concept - partly due to legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember reading about that and some of the report. I'm aware of how these systems look.

Once an aircraft has enough momentum and lift to attain controlled level flight it takes quite a lot to catastrophically disrupt that, and to do it without any electronic transmission after the primary event is very unusual on a plane of that purpose and class.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 

Latest Posts

Back