|
|
MH370
Jul 22, 2015 11:30:08 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 22, 2015 11:30:08 GMT 1
the two B777s in question are only 13 line numbers apart Actually, they are 3 construction numbers (28420 and 28423) and 333 line numbers (404 and 71) apart. It's a little oddity, because 9M-MRO is one of the later built 777s and only first flew in 2002, not 1997 like many of her sister ships. I think the point of system similarity remains, though. Thanks, yes my mistake, I was comparing the Egypt Air one to the wrong written off Malaysian one (the shot down one) In that article you linked to it did say the investigation into the Egypt Air Fire found 280 frames built with the same wiring problem, I guess all in sequence ? |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
MH370
Jul 22, 2015 16:54:04 GMT 1
Post by philidor on Jul 22, 2015 16:54:04 GMT 1
The main reason to believe in some kind of hijacking or pilot suicide scenario is that any accident implies strange coincidences. One of them is that all communications were discontinued exactly in the short time interval between the last call to the Malaysian traffic control and the first scheduled call to the Vietnamese traffic control.
The main reason not to believe in a pilot suicide theory is that no clear motive has been identified. The captain's alleged motive (a political gesture) is particularly unconvincing. Likewise, no other crew member or passenger appears suspicious.
|
|
|
|
MH370
Jul 22, 2015 17:21:25 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 22, 2015 17:21:25 GMT 1
The main reason to believe in some kind of hijacking or pilot suicide scenario is that any accident implies strange coincidences. One of them is that all communications were discontinued exactly in the short time interval between the last call to the Malaysian traffic control and the first scheduled call to the Vietnamese traffic control. The main reason not to believe in a pilot suicide theory is that no clear motive has been identified. The captain's alleged motive (a political gesture) is particularly unconvincing. Likewise, no other crew member or passenger appears suspicious. We will only get any more useful information with the discovery of the wreckage / flight recorders  |
|
|
|
MH370
Jul 22, 2015 17:27:24 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 22, 2015 17:27:24 GMT 1
PS I do think the cockpit fire scenario is plausible, one pilot leaves cockpit to raise the alarm, can't back in if the other pilot is now overcome with smoke, but all the coms going off at the same time is a bit more suspicious.
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228 
|
Post by Taliesin on Jul 22, 2015 17:36:17 GMT 1
The main reason to believe in some kind of hijacking or pilot suicide scenario is that any accident implies strange coincidences. Yea well, that's the nature of accidents  Accidents happen when all holes of the "swiss cheese" align. See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_modelIn this case however, I think we have a credible accident model with a single failure for which there's precedent on the same type. I think that a hijacking scenario requires far more coincidences and assumptions than any technical failure. All of the passengers were thoroughly checked out, nothing stuck. The assumptions needed for a convincing hijacking theory, seen through by people with no criminal history and no motives that somehow went so horribly wrong that nothing was ever seen again of the airplane are just staggering. Particularly in this day and age, where airplanes come with reinforced cockpit doors. Sure, it could be a particularly elaborate pilot suicide, but I doubt it. One of them is that all communications were discontinued exactly in the short time interval between the last call to the Malaysian traffic control and the first scheduled call to the Vietnamese traffic control. That's a little strange, but nothing more than a coincidence. Like I already wrote, pilots are trained to prioritise. In a critical situation, the priorities go: Aviate, navigate, communicate. A lot of people argue that "a radio call doesn't take that much time" or something along those lines. That's true, but in an emergency it's simply not a priority. |
|
|
|
MH370
Jul 22, 2015 17:49:49 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 22, 2015 17:49:49 GMT 1
Good point, I think I would try and put a fire out first before taking time to make a mayday call, I case I became overcome while making the call.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jul 23, 2015 14:44:20 GMT 1
Hi Taliesin, Just sharing my 5 cents (we don't use pennies in Canada anymore). Between the hijacking and aircraft fault theories, I'd like to pick one side but the incident information we have so far punches holes right through either of them that I just cannot do it. We can list out the known facts and attribute each to either theory but I think we'll end up even more or less. Say if I pick the hijacking, we have no information so far that would tell us if there was someone (passenger of crew) on board that would have planned and executed something like this. If I pick the fire theory, it is difficult for me to explain the two later turns that send the aircraft around Indonesia. Crew incapacitation is much easier to explain if the aircraft went in a near straight line until it ran out of fuel like that Helios 737. And then, we have the lack of debris of any sort. It's hard to imagine how an out of control aircraft would have gone down into the water whole or in large pieces. Debris sinks overtime, but plastic always floats and there's got to have been enough spewed out from the water impact to stay floating. Above all, in either situation but especially in the hijacking case, what could have kept the passengers and especially other crew members unresponsive to the bizarre turn of events after the first signs of deviation. I know the cockpit doors are well reinforced, but I feel that 7 hours is long time not to have done some kind of disruption to try and end the flight early. For these points you mentioned, human intervention (with malicious intent) can also fit, although the fuel exhaustion point is a bit weaker here: |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
MH370
Jul 23, 2015 16:52:10 GMT 1
Post by s543 on Jul 23, 2015 16:52:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
MH370
Jul 23, 2015 17:29:27 GMT 1
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 23, 2015 17:29:27 GMT 1
To sum it up: We know ........       I just wonder when we will know. If they find it and the black boxes, we will learn a lot more, but I don't hold up much hope at the moment PS the cockpit voice recorder might not have much on it ! I think it only records the last 2 hours ? So if depressurisation occurred / or was done on purpose, there won't be much speaking after 7 hours. |
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Jul 23, 2015 19:17:20 GMT 1
If I pick the fire theory, it is difficult for me to explain the two later turns that send the aircraft around Indonesia. Crew incapacitation is much easier to explain if the aircraft went in a near straight line until it ran out of fuel like that Helios 737. Two? I always thought there was only the one, at the end of the Malacca Straight. I always thought the flight path looked a little.. "angular" because it's not a flight path per se, but a connection of known positions. I agree that the turn is hard to explain and I'm not familiar with the winds at that time in the area, but I'm sure that strong winds could turn an airplane from its course. And then, we have the lack of debris of any sort. It's hard to imagine how an out of control aircraft would have gone down into the water whole or in large pieces. Debris sinks overtime, but plastic always floats and there's got to have been enough spewed out from the water impact to stay floating. This is the same though for both theories. Concerning the plastic debris, I think you underestimate just how polluted the oceans are. In any ocean, there is 6-10 times more plastic in the water than plancton. In the areas with circular currents, where plastic accumulates, like the Pacific Gyre, this ratio reaches 1000:1. There is a documentary by Vice called "Garbage Island", it's on youtube. Very interesting, but the kind of stuff that might ruin your day, however.. Above all, in either situation but especially in the hijacking case, what could have kept the passengers and especially other crew members unresponsive to the bizarre turn of events after the first signs of deviation. I know the cockpit doors are well reinforced, but I feel that 7 hours is long time not to have done some kind of disruption to try and end the flight early. If we go with the oxygen container fire, it's not unreasonable to assume that it caused a depressurisation. This is what SU-GPB looked like after the fire:  For these points you mentioned, human intervention (with malicious intent) can also fit, although the fuel exhaustion point is a bit weaker here: I think that's a gross oversimplification. For a hijacking, you need a suspect, a motive and a working theory. Here, we have none. No one has claimed responsibility, no one is under closer investigation, there's nothing. They checked the passenger manifest so thoroughly that they found people traveling with stolen passports. I'm confident they would have found someone with the criminal energy to hijack an airplane. The thing with crime is that it usually escalates. You don't just wake up one morning and kill people or hijack airplanes, criminal "careers" usually follow a pattern that would have come up. But no one fits. Unless there was someone on the plane who wasn't supposed to be there, I fail to see how it could have been human intervention. |
|
