The professional pilot already covered that:
"Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations. "
Three other things argue against a fire as well. First, the turn was programmed into the autopilot before the pilot's last verbal communication. Second, one of the transponders went silent before the pilot's last verbal communication. And third, SOP in case of fire is to drop altitude, both to avoid feeding oxygen into the cabin and because if the fire can't be controlled you have maybe twenty minutes tops to get it on the ground or everyone inside is dead. He not only did not drop altitude, the plane flew for much longer than should be possible with an out-of-control fire.Even in fire a pilot will let ATC know about it before pulling their electrical. That will at least alert authorities to get the airspace cleared and search and rescue ready. And his example of the Swiss Air DC-10 had them talking with ATC upto the point where the fire was literally in the cockpit. And the only power they pulled was for the cabin.
But we'd have to know it was there. I say that because a part of a theory someone put forth is that this plane shadowed another plane such that the radar signature would appear to be one plane. Evidently with the transponder(s) not functioning, the plane being shadowed would have no idea there was another plane. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. There is so much being said...If they want to use it as a missle I'm sure we could shoot it down before it got close to our airspace.
It sounds as though you too heard the radio program "that must not be mentioned" today. That pilot really sounded like a cool guy. I learned a lot today from that segment.Three other things argue against a fire as well. First, the turn was programmed into the autopilot before the pilot's last verbal communication. Second, one of the transponders went silent before the pilot's last verbal communication. And third, SOP in case of fire is to drop altitude, both to avoid feeding oxygen into the cabin and because if the fire can't be controlled you have maybe twenty minutes tops to get it on the ground or everyone inside is dead. He not only did not drop altitude, the plane flew for much longer than should be possible with an out-of-control fire.
I still think this is an extremely complex viral marketing campaign for a renewal of the show Lost.
Yup, and although that call was the only part I caught, I found his points in rebuttal to be quite persuasive.It sounds as though you too heard the radio program "that must not be mentioned" today. That pilot really sounded like a cool guy. I learned a lot today from that segment.
Not necessarily. If the point was to acquire some person or persons on the plane, silence would suit them well indeed. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but after Afghanistan claims of responsibility are not necessarily forthcoming after a successful terrorist act.I have to say I have no fing clue what went down, however I am reasonably certain it will get figured out sooner or later. I do agree with Don that if it was terrorism someone would be jumping to claim responsibility.
Whenever something goofy like this goes down I ask myself who exactly was on that plane if its not about the plane itself then its about someone who was on board it.
Sweet lord, who woke her up?
Too weird. My wife and I were running around here and there today and that's the only part we caught too. I only listen if I happen to be in the car.Yup, and although that call was the only part I caught, I found his points in rebuttal to be quite persuasive.
Not necessarily... My theory is the plane was going to be used for an attack. The people hijacking the plane figured people would assume it crashed and sank. After a long wait ... Maybe 6 months to a couple of years the plane would be used in an attack after people forgot about it.
-snip-
If they want to use it as a missle I'm sure we could shoot it down before it got close to our airspace.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. One of Government's greatest weapons.I can understand why Israel has already changed its defenses to account for such possibilities.
Fern
Deepening the mystery of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, residents of the remote Maldives island of Kuda Huvadhoo in Dhaal Atoll claimed that they have seen a "low flying jumbo jet" on 8 March, the day on which the aircraft disappeared. The Haveeruonline report said that the aircraft was travelling at a very low attitude making tremendous noise from "North to South-East, towards the Southern tip of the Maldives – Addu". "I've never seen a jet flying so low over our island before. We've seen seaplanes, but I'm sure that this was not one of those. I could even make out the doors on the plane clearly," said an eyewitness to Haveeruonline.
Thailand's military says its radar detected a plane that may have been Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 just minutes after the missing jetliner's communications went down, and that it didn't share the information earlier because it wasn't specifically asked for it. Thai air force spokesman Montol Suchookorn said Tuesday the plane followed a twisting flight path to the Strait of Malacca, which is where Malaysian radar tracked Flight 370 early 8 March.
A report from NBC News Tuesday night added another twist, claiming the programmed change in direction was made at least 12 minutes before the plane's co-pilot signed off to air traffic controllers, telling them, "All right, good night."
New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt said the new timeframe "makes the issue of foul play seem more significant."
"Because by doing that," he said, "what it basically shows is that this thing was already heading in a different direction when they're saying good night."
More from the Tom Clancy stuff:
It still bugs me that the ACARS/SATCOM pings indicate the plane never got further away from, or closer to the satellite for all those hours.
On the other side of the straights are bunch of uninhabited islands, some likely with old WWII airstrips. If someone is going to go to the trouble of stealing a 777 couldn't they also get a bulldozer or two over to one of the uninhabited islands and scratch out a dirt runway? Maybe the reason the satellite showed the plane wasn't moving is because the plane wasn't moving. It was just sitting there under some camo nets or in a shed.
Fern
Could someone with more knowledge please answer this question. Aren't attack submarines designed to track sonar and noises in the ocean over long distances, why can't a sub locate the ping from the black box?
Could someone with more knowledge please answer this question. Aren't attack submarines designed to track sonar and noises in the ocean over long distances, why can't a sub locate the ping from the black box?
why can't a sub locate the ping from the black box?
The bermuda triangle is not special. You can draw a triangle pretty much anywhere and get the same result.
Yeah, me too.Too weird. My wife and I were running around here and there today and that's the only part we caught too. I only listen if I happen to be in the car.
Wouldn't the curvature of the Earth mask the radar signal of a grounded plane? If nothing else, surely such a small return would be masked in ground clutter.More from the Tom Clancy stuff:
It still bugs me that the ACARS/SATCOM pings indicate the plane never got further away from, or closer to the satellite for all those hours.
On the other side of the straights are bunch of uninhabited islands, some likely with old WWII airstrips. If someone is going to go to the trouble of stealing a 777 couldn't they also get a bulldozer or two over to one of the uninhabited islands and scratch out a dirt runway? Maybe the reason the satellite showed the plane wasn't moving is because the plane wasn't moving. It was just sitting there under some camo nets or in a shed.
Fern
I think there are long distances and long distances. I have no idea if we had a sub in the area, but the new search area is roughly the size of the continental United States. Subs do not practice warfare over that sort of area, too much background noise and no practical way to attack or even identify targets over such distances. I don't know how close a sub would have to be to pick up a low power active ping, but given that subs travel slowly, surely ASW planes would be a better choice. Problem is no plane or even carrier contains enough buoys to cover such an area and towed arrays are only three or four times faster than subs. Plus, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking our P3's no longer have towed array capability, relying on dropped buoys and the magnetic anomaly detector which may not work at all with a largely aluminum 777-200. If I'm remembering correctly, then we would need to use choppers for towed arrays. And while the tow speed might not be much different, the loiter time and time to station would both be markedly worse.Could someone with more knowledge please answer this question. Aren't attack submarines designed to track sonar and noises in the ocean over long distances, why can't a sub locate the ping from the black box?