Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370

[exchemist]

Update...

A text was sent out to the loved one's of those on board by the Malaysian Authorities:

Malaysia Airlines has informed the relatives of those aboard missing flight MH370 that they believe no one on the plane survived.

The following SMS message was sent to relatives: “Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived. ... we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the southern Indian Ocean.”​

Whether this text was sent out before or after they were gathered and got to hear the announcement live on air from said authorities..

But it seems they sent out the text to relatives.. Unbelievable.

You'd think they'd have hired people - ie grief counselors - to tell them something like this, after over 2 weeks of agony for those loved ones, face to face. No.. they do it by text. And from the BBC, it seems the families got the text before it was announced.

Unbelievable.

Suspect the Chinese are not big on "grief counsellors": it's a bit of recent luxury, even in Western countries. I'm not sure what else they could realistically have done. The outcome is hardly a surprise, by this stage.

But I just hope they don't now find the objects in the ocean are flotsam from a ship or something. I presume they will have made pretty damned sure before making the announcement…...

 

[GeoffP]

Huh? How is a controller 4000 miles away going to help them put out a fire?

Again, the mantra of every pilot is "aviate, navigate, communicate." Communicate comes at the end for a reason - it is the least important part of a pilot's job. Their first job is the safety of their passengers. And that means that one of the very first things they will do, if they realize there is a fire on board, is try to put the fire out - and that means shutting down nonessential systems until they can identify and isolate which system is causing the fire.

It would alert the authorities to the fact they might require emergency support, or might be going down. Take the alternative: if they detected a fire, do you think they'd just keep that information to themselves? We're at the point here where people are inferring that they went to 44K feet to put the fire out. I think they'd want to explain those air acrobatics to a controller somewhere.

 

[GeoffP]

They likely tried. They may have failed. Given that they never got communications back - it's more likely that they failed.



Because their airplane was on fire. If you have time, you turn off circuits one at a time and see if that fixes the problem. If you don't have time (let's say you are currently asphyxiating) you turn off everything you can. If the fire has gotten to power buses it doesn't matter anyway; you're not going to have power to run your transponder (or ACARS, or radios, or cockpit lights, or navigation systems . . . .)

That would be one hell of an inferno, wouldn't it? I really think they'd have called this in waaay before then - and before turning off communications. They turned off the transponder too. I don't know if a fire would have hit those systems first, but it seems like a lot of a coincidence.

 

[billvon]

It would alert the authorities to the fact they might require emergency support, or might be going down.

Right - which is why it's on that list at all. But again, it is at the end of the list. A crew with an emergency that threatens the aircraft is generally going to deal with the emergency first, then talk to someone. It does no good calling for help if you hit the ocean at 650mph. A controller can't do anything about that; only the pilot can.

Take the alternative: if they detected a fire, do you think they'd just keep that information to themselves?

I'm a pilot. And I can tell you for sure that if my airplane was on fire, the very first thing I would do is try to put it out, then try to get the airplane on the ground as quickly as possible. If, in the interim, I had time/resources to declare an emergency, I would.

But let's take a very simple case. I take off, then at 1000 feet off the ground, the cockpit fills with smoke. First job - fly the airplane. Make sure it is trimmed, locate the nearest emergency landing area, turn towards it. Next try to put the fire out. Turn off the electrical master. If that fixes the problem, and the smoke starts to thin out, great. Keep the master switch off and land as quickly as possible. No opportunity for a radio call there.

If there's more time, and it was night (i.e. I will more likely need power to land safely) then I might turn everything off, turn the master back on and one by one try turning systems back on until I got the minimum set of instruments back on that I need. (primarily panel lights and electrically powered instruments like turn-and-bank.) That might get me the radio and transponder back, it might not. If the problem fried the voltage regulator, then I still wouldn't be able to talk to anyone.

We're at the point here where people are inferring that they went to 44K feet to put the fire out. I think they'd want to explain those air acrobatics to a controller somewhere.

They might want to explain - but again, that's going to be a lot lower on their list of priorities than "save the aircraft and passengers."

That would be one hell of an inferno, wouldn't it?

Yes, it would. It would be like the fire that brought down the Swissair flight. From the report:

"The investigation was unable to confirm if this arc was the "lead event" that ignited the flammable covering on MPET insulation blankets that quickly spread across other flammable materials.[1] The crew did not recognize that a fire had started and were not warned by instruments. Once they became aware of the fire, the uncertainty of the problem made it difficult to address. The rapid spread of the fire led to the failure of key display systems, and the crew were soon rendered unable to control the aircraft. Because he had no light by which to see his controls after the displays failed, the pilot was forced to steer the plane blindly; intentionally or not, the plane swerved off course and headed back out into the Atlantic. "

I really think they'd have called this in waaay before then - and before turning off communications. They turned off the transponder too. I don't know if a fire would have hit those systems first, but it seems like a lot of a coincidence.

Again, "shut everything down until the fire is out" might have been their plan.

 

[GeoffP]

I know you're a pilot, but it just seems more likely to me that they'd emit a distress call. What if they had to ditch in the ocean? Odds are no one would survive it, but surely they have to tell people where they're going down in case someone does survive it. Don't they have several officers - three at least, no? Surely someone could make that call before shutting anything off. For that matter, the call itself is quick. There's several reasons why one would make the call: to call in help on the water (naval vessels to search for survivors, or raftees); letting loved ones know about the plane's fate. I admit though that I don't know the procedure for on-board fire in a passenger aircraft.

 

[billvon]

I know you're a pilot, but it just seems more likely to me that they'd emit a distress call. What if they had to ditch in the ocean? Odds are no one would survive it, but surely they have to tell people where they're going down in case someone does survive it.

They would indeed. But at the point they were considering ditching, if the fire had taken out the radios or the power buses (as the fire on the Swissair flight did) that would not be an option.

Don't they have several officers - three at least, no?

There were two pilots - the captain and co-pilot. The captain was very experienced. The copilot was flying a 777 for the first time without a trainer with him.

Surely someone could make that call before shutting anything off. For that matter, the call itself is quick. There's several reasons why one would make the call: to call in help on the water (naval vessels to search for survivors, or raftees)

You are assuming that the radios worked at that point. They may have, but the pilots shut down power to try to deal with the fire. They may not have worked at that point; the fire may have already taken them out.

 

[Yazata]

I'm not sure what to think.

The plane made a sudden left turn of about 150 degrees not long after its last 'good night' radio contact with the controllers. The transponder and the ACARS went silent at about the same time. So something very dramatic happened on the airplane and it happened fast. Whether the problem was mechanical or criminal is unclear.

The theory that all of the news media are currently stroking is the 'onboard fire' theory. They were stroking a 'hijack' theory just as furiously shortly before that, and then the bulk of the world's news media changed their narrative in the space of 24 hours. That wordwide media herd instinct is just as remarkable in its own way as the airplane disappearance itself.

OK, it's conceivable that the pilots detected an onboard fire moments after the last radio contact and they changed course in hopes of making an emergency landing at Penang or someplace like that. So why didn't they alert their intended destination airport they were coming and declare an emergency? The westward flightpath over the Malay Peninsula is several hundred miles long, so there would have been time to put out that message, even if they were busy flying the plane and tying to fight the fire.

Ok, maybe they were overcome by smoke or something and were unconscious by then. But they were traveling west. Somehow the plane made another 90 degree left turn after crossing the Malay Peninsula (assuming that the Indian Ocean theory is correct, which is still kind of speculative) and headed south across Sumatra and towards the remote waters off western Australia. Who made the turn? Conceivably the pilots had already programmed it into the autopilot or something.

It's conceivable, I guess. But it just seems kind of convenient. The transponder and ACARS going out. (Are they located together physically and powered off the same lines?) The pilots failure to declare an emergency. (Was their voice radio also out?) Despite all the hypothetical havoc that was supposedly knocking out systems right and left, the autopilot continues to work fine and the aircraft continues flying southwards for hours more until it finally runs out of fuel.

That scenario just smells funny to me. (Maybe it's all the smoke in the cabin.)

 

[River Ape]

My bet: however things turn out, we will ultimately discover that more was known (or suspected) by this time than certain governments were willing to talk about.

A week ago I suggested that more was known, or strongly suspected, than was being revealed. I am pretty sure that the UK Intelligence Services, who were the initial recipients of all available Inmarsat data as well as of other material, quickly concluded that the most likely scenario was that the captain was responsible for everything that happened to the plane: switching off the transponder, inactivating ACARS, changing course and altitude, etc. Intelligence Services do not make public announcements. The UK Government would have mediated the onward transmission of intelligence to the Malaysian authorities – who in turn would have been loath to accept what they were being told.

However, I privately suspected that greater secrets were not seeing the light of day. Within a few hours of the plane's disappearance my own best guess was that the pilot, whose political affiliations and technical expertise were quickly revealed, had issued certain political demands to the Malaysian Government (or that they were issued by confederates on the ground). The plane was then set on a course from which it must be recalled if all were not to perish, with both sides knowing that time would run out. The Government called the pilot's bluff (or were in a state of paralysed indecision) – only to discover that he was not bluffing – with the inevitable deadly result. They will not want this to be discovered.

The above scenario is speculative, of course, but I am surprised that no one else has put it forward. I have been watching many other explanations perish this past week. This one, at least, is still standing as a realistic possibility.

 

[billvon]

It's conceivable, I guess. But it just seems kind of convenient. The transponder and ACARS going out. (Are they located together physically and powered off the same lines?) The pilots failure to declare an emergency. (Was their voice radio also out?) Despite all the hypothetical havoc that was supposedly knocking out systems right and left, the autopilot continues to work fine . . .

Why do you think the autopilot was working fine? Even without an autopilot an airliner will continue flying in approximately the same direction unless something (like turbulence) perturbs it.

 

[Bells]

Suspect the Chinese are not big on "grief counsellors": it's a bit of recent luxury, even in Western countries. I'm not sure what else they could realistically have done. The outcome is hardly a surprise, by this stage.

But I just hope they don't now find the objects in the ocean are flotsam from a ship or something. I presume they will have made pretty damned sure before making the announcement…...

But an sms?

Can't say I am surprised by Malaysia at this point.

As for whatever is floating in the ocean.. Malaysia and Malaysian Airlines have consistently refused to release the cargo manifest to the countries helping search for the plane. I know the Australian authorities conducting the search off Perth, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, requested the cargo manifest to make identifying if the items floating in the ocean were from the plane, but Malaysia has refused to release it to date. This refusal has led many aviation experts in Australia to question what Malaysia is hiding about what was in the cargo hold of that plane.

 

[Read-Only]

The plane has been located - the *area*, at least. It's somewhere near the flotsam spotted SW of Perth. That truly WAS wreckage from the plane.

 

[Yazata]

Is the theory that the transponder and ACARS were powered down, either by fire severing power cables or by the pilots pulling breakers in the course of battling an electrical fire or something, consistent with the reports that ACARS continued on pinging for hours? My layman's concept is that the continued pinging indicates that it was still powered up, even if it was switched to a mode where it no longer transmitted data.

 

[Yazata]

Why do you think the autopilot was working fine? Even without an autopilot an airliner will continue flying in approximately the same direction unless something (like turbulence) perturbs it.

I was unaware that airliners are aerodynamically stable enough to fly on for many hours with no control inputs at all.

But there's still that second roughly 90 degree lefthand turn executed west of Malaya over the straits of Malacca that hypothetically took the plane took south towards Australia. To my layman's eye, that suggests either a human hand at the controls or a still-functioing pre-programmed autopilot. If it was the latter, maybe it subsequently died on the long trip south.

 

[billvon]

I was unaware that airliners are aerodynamically stable enough to fly on for many hours with no control inputs at all.

In general, a properly trimmed aircraft will do that (fly for hours with no input.) Airliners are strongly stable in pitch and yaw, and weakly stable in roll. They will tend to return to straight and level flight if perturbed.

 

[exchemist]

But an sms?

Can't say I am surprised by Malaysia at this point.

As for whatever is floating in the ocean.. Malaysia and Malaysian Airlines have consistently refused to release the cargo manifest to the countries helping search for the plane. I know the Australian authorities conducting the search off Perth, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, requested the cargo manifest to make identifying if the items floating in the ocean were from the plane, but Malaysia has refused to release it to date. This refusal has led many aviation experts in Australia to question what Malaysia is hiding about what was in the cargo hold of that plane.

Was it SMS?

I must say I did not know about the cargo manifest issue. It does not seem to have made the news reports in Europe. I gather MAS lost a plane in 2000, due to a falsely declared chemical having been put aboard in China. That fits my my business experience that Chinese companies don't always take seriously the mandatory declarations of composition of airfreighted chemical samples.

 

[Kittamaru]

billvon, here's a question that's been nagging at me - you mention about if it was a fire how they would work on landing ASAP before worrying about a distress call... okay, that makes enough sense for me to take in. But, if that were the case... why were they still airborne for several hours with no communication and seemingly random course changes? Surely, even if their entire instrumentation were out, wouldn't they still have the ability to "fly by map" so to speak? Or don't pilots learn how to navigate sans instruments anymore?

I ask because I don't know - It would seem to me a good idea to keep a basic compass/map/chart system so that, in the event of total systems failure, you can at least approximate where you are and where you are going, especially over open ocean. I'm no cartographer though, so for all i know such things could be impossible *shrug*

 

[billvon]

billvon, here's a question that's been nagging at me - you mention about if it was a fire how they would work on landing ASAP before worrying about a distress call... okay, that makes enough sense for me to take in. But, if that were the case... why were they still airborne for several hours with no communication and seemingly random course changes? Surely, even if their entire instrumentation were out, wouldn't they still have the ability to "fly by map" so to speak?

If they still had lights, maps and compasses, and they had not been impaired by the fire - then that's a possibility.

I ask because I don't know - It would seem to me a good idea to keep a basic compass/map/chart system so that, in the event of total systems failure, you can at least approximate where you are and where you are going, especially over open ocean. I'm no cartographer though, so for all i know such things could be impossible *shrug*

Pilots can navigate given airspeed, altitude, weather forecasts, paper maps and a compass. (And all those are available on the "steam gauge" instruments that do not depend on power.) It's one of the first things they learn. But the accuracy is going to be pretty low.

 

[Kittamaru]

If they still had lights, maps and compasses, and they had not been impaired by the fire - then that's a possibility.

Pilots can navigate given airspeed, altitude, weather forecasts, paper maps and a compass. (And all those are available on the "steam gauge" instruments that do not depend on power.) It's one of the first things they learn. But the accuracy is going to be pretty low.

Yeah, but they should be accurate enough to find their way back to land and get close enough to visually acquire an airport, right?

So then we can pretty much say that something MUST have happened to the pilot/copilot... be it they died, taken hostage/hijacked, or went rogue, but if they were navigating the plane even without any instrumentation they should have been able to find their way somewhere in those 5-6 hours they were airborne, right?

 

[billvon]

Yeah, but they should be accurate enough to find their way back to land and get close enough to visually acquire an airport, right?

Depends. If the compass is accurate, their weather forecasts are up to date and their remaining instruments work - AND the weather is clear enough to see land? Then yes, there's a good chance they'd be able to see land.

However, if they flew until they suspected they were near the airport and didn't see anything due to clouds or misnavigation - they might have turned to try to find another airport.

So then we can pretty much say that something MUST have happened to the pilot/copilot... be it they died, taken hostage/hijacked, or went rogue, but if they were navigating the plane even without any instrumentation they should have been able to find their way somewhere in those 5-6 hours they were airborne, right?

Again depends on the weather. Their presumed first destination (Kuda Huvadhoo) reported as "broken clouds" that night, which means anything from 50% to 90% clouds. Finding an airport at night through dense clouds without instruments is not very easy.

 

[Kittamaru]

Depends. If the compass is accurate, their weather forecasts are up to date and their remaining instruments work - AND the weather is clear enough to see land? Then yes, there's a good chance they'd be able to see land.

However, if they flew until they suspected they were near the airport and didn't see anything due to clouds or misnavigation - they might have turned to try to find another airport.



Again depends on the weather. Their presumed first destination (Kuda Huvadhoo) reported as "broken clouds" that night, which means anything from 50% to 90% clouds. Finding an airport at night through dense clouds without instruments is not very easy.

Makes sense - and in a jet of that size, you can't just descend into/under the cloud layer because the risk of hitting a high-rise or mountain or some such I guess huh... plus loss of power means no external lights so the chance of something hitting you goes up (though I guess the skys aren't that crowded?)