If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)
There was a suprising number of planes in the air around Malaysia at 1
am local time. ------------- A pilot flying another plane who tried to contact the pilots in the cockpit of the Malaysia Airlines plane said he heard mumbled voices before contact was lost. ------------- So another theory: Something went wrong with the cabin air inside the plane. Either it lost pressurization (slowly) or recirculation wasn't working - causing buidup of carbon monoxide. --------------- On October 25, 1999, a chartered Learjet 35 was scheduled to fly from Orlando, Florida to Dallas, Texas. Early in the flight the aircraft, which was cruising at altitude on autopilot, quickly lost cabin pressure. All on board were incapacitated due to hypoxia — a lack of oxygen. The aircraft failed to make the westward turn toward Dallas over north Florida. It continued flying over the southern and midwestern United States for almost four hours and 1,500 miles (2,400 km). The plane ran out of fuel and crashed into a field near Aberdeen, South Dakota after an uncontrolled descent. The four passengers on board were golf star Payne Stewart, his agents, Van Ardan and Robert Fraley, and Bruce Borland, a highly regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus golf course design company. The NTSB determined that: The probable cause of this accident was incapacitation of the flight crew members as a result of their failure to receive supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin pressurization, for undetermined reasons. A possible explanation for the failure of the pilots to receive emergency oxygen is that their ability to think and act decisively was impaired because of hypoxia before they could don their oxygen masks. No definitive evidence exists that indicates the rate at which the accident flight lost its cabin pressure; therefore, the Safety Board evaluated conditions of both rapid and gradual depressurization. If there had been a breach in the fuselage (even a small one that could not be visually detected by the in-flight observers) or a seal failure, the cabin could have depressurized gradually, rapidly, or even explosively. Research has shown that a period of as little as 8 seconds without supplemental oxygen following rapid depressurization to about 30,000 feet (9,100 m) may cause a drop in oxygen saturation that can significantly impair cognitive functioning and increase the amount of time required to complete complex tasks. ---------------- So either MH370 depressurized quickly - or slowly. The pilots might have been able to put their masks on - or realize they needed to put their masks on. Perhaps they did - but their supplemental oxygen supply didn't work. Perhaps in their confused state, with or without functional masks, they started an emergency descent before they blacked out, causing the plane to smash into the ocean with the pilots incapacitated on the way down. Note also that in the flight of the Lear Jet in 1999 that the pilots, even if they did don their masks, made no attempt at radio contact. ----------- 2005 Helios Airways Flight 522 crash On August 14, 2005, a Helios Airways Boeing 737-300 crashed 40 km (25 mi) from Athens after running out of fuel. An investigation later concluded that an improper pressurization setting in the cockpit had caused the cabin pressure to drop, and resulted in the incapacitation of the passengers and crew. It was later determined that one of the flight attendants had used the bottled oxygen supply and his pilot's training to attempt to bring the plane down to a lower altitude. There were no survivors. ------------- I think this is looking more and more likely - that the pilots suffered a slow asphyxia or hypoxia, caused either by a fault in the airframe or the misapplication or failure of some valve or switch. The plane descended rapidly, either as the last semi-conscious act of the pilot(s) or because of a complete lack of pilot input to the controls. This would be expected during the early phase of the flight, as it climbs to cruise altitude. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)
My theory is that the plane was shot down by a military jet. The plane that was picked up on radar that was supposed to be MH370 turning around with no transponder signal was the attacking craft. I think China was slow to release the sat images because they had to make sure it wasn't one of their craft, or one of those from their sock puppet, baby Kim.
What I wish is that one of the pilots took the plane and landed it somewhere, but that seems more far fetched than my theory. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - I know where it is...
Home Guy posted for all of us...
And I know how to SNIP There was a suprising number of planes in the air around Malaysia at 1 am local time. At Fantasy Island! Tattoo is calling out de plane deplane and Roarke is admiring the fine Corinthian leather. -- Tekkie |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)
Robert Green wrote:
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014 Seems there's no one home. Couldn't even read the page source. I got the same error last night. Then I renamed my HOSTS file, closed the browser and tried again - and it worked. There was something in my HOSTS file that prevented the page from operating correctly. I spent about 1/2 hour looking at images of dark blue water and clouds. Scanned about 400 grid locations - didn't see anything man-made (no boats, nothing). Each grid image seemed to be about 2000 x 1000 ft, and anything 10 x 10 ft would be easily distinguishable, possibly something 5 x 5. About 10 to 15% of the imagery was obscured by clouds. I eventually got bored and left the site. What I would have liked to have seen was a graphic showing me the area I was looking at in terms of where the beacon signal was lost off the coast of Malaysia. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking
Robert Green wrote:
Apparently the onboard ACRS? sends maintenance, performance data back, similar to Airbus that went down near Brazil. But Malaysian airlines chose not to participate in Boeings data collection, but Boeing says MA did use the system themselves. It's not clear if the choice to not buy the data collection service from Boeing means that telemetry (to who? to where?) still takes place. Presumably MA wouldn't need a telemetry link for such data, as they could simply pull the data off the planes manually when-ever they felt like it - since the planes are in their possession on a frequent basis. What needs to happen is that fake "Transponder OFF" switches need to go into these cabins so that when someone tries to turn it off (why they even CAN be turned off is another issue) The "off" switch is used routinely to turn off the transponder when planes are on the ground (parked, in hangars, etc) so that ATC screens are not cluttered by useless information. It's a tough call as to how to make them automatic. I'd say that if an interlock can be reasonably well engineered, that if the plane's wheels are up, then the beacons are supplied by power that can't be turned off from the cockpit. I think that's a remarkably strong concern to them. What bothers me more is that if they were so lax in checking passports, how well did they screen the luggage for explosives? Bulletproof passport checking requires real-time data and protocal links to every conceivable authority in the world that can issue an opinion about any given passport, and the cost to "subscribe" or participate in such a network must have little or zero cost to end users (airlines, airports) if stakeholders (gov'ts, law enforcement, societies) want to experience 100% compliance everywhere. And it must happen in a way that does not require humans to do more things than they do now (press more buttons, flip through more screens, etc) and a lack of data must not be interpreted as a "thumbs-down" which causes a holdup during checkin or boarding. The implimentation and day-to-day functioning of such a system requires talents and cooperation that extend far beyond the staff at any given airport or boarding gate. To link the competency of such passport checking (which is a distributed human effort) to the competency of explosive checking (which is an effort soley performed by specific local humans at any given location) is not logical. Wouldn't hijackers want to start off toward their destination as soon as possible? Hijacking or suicide crash dives are possibilities, but hijacking requires considerable sophistication and the newest information implies they would know how to turn off both transmitters. Hijack - implies taking control of the plane away from the pilots, with several possible intentions: - (a) Direct or fly the plane safely to an alternate location that the hijackers could not otherwise travel to using legal means. - (b) Direct of fly the plane safely to an alternate location to hold the plane and passengers hostage in exchange for some political or financial demand. - (c) Direct or fly the plane into a target (a-la 9/11). In other words, to use the plane as a weapon against a hardened target for political or religious reasons. For any of the above, it becomes a question as to how necessary it is to turn off the plane's various transmission sources to render it "invisible" from normal ground operations. Presumably the thinking is that any plane that has been hijacked anywhere in the world for any reason will be shot down as the primary response, so the best countermeasure for the hijacker is to make the plane as invisible as possible as soon as possible after the hijacking event has started. We know (or we think we know) that the plane was not deemed to have been hijacked and thus not shot down by any gov't in the area. We think we know that the plane did not land at an alternate airport, and no ransom demand was made (or at least made public). If the plane went down due to a struggle for control as a result of hijacking, we must conclude the initial stages of the hijacking was successful as it probably entailed turning off the identification beacon - something that would imply the hijackers had "comfortable control" of the plane. A struggle for control of the plane would have happened later - possibly hours later - presumably after passengers had come to a consensus about the situation, gathered their courage, forumated plan, etc. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking
In article , Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com
wrote: What needs to happen is that fake "Transponder OFF" switches need to go into these cabins so that when someone tries to turn it off (why they even CAN be turned off is another issue) It's a tough call as to how to make them automatic. I'd say that if an interlock can be reasonably well engineered, that if the plane's wheels are up, then the beacons are supplied by power that can't be turned off from the cockpit. I wonder if there is any reason they couldn't share a circuit with the flight recorders since they already automatically turn off on the ground. Bulletproof passport checking requires real-time data and protocal links to every conceivable authority in the world that can issue an opinion about any given passport, and the cost to "subscribe" or participate in such a network must have little or zero cost to end users (airlines, airports) if stakeholders (gov'ts, law enforcement, societies) want to experience 100% compliance everywhere. And the zero cost includes not only access but also pretty close to zero costs for airline personnel and equipment, and hassle. It would seem as though you would pretty much have to mandate it by ALL airlines from ALL terminals for it to possibly work. At least until the first time a person isn't let on an airplane because somebody somewhere transposed to digit or two on data entry. For any of the above, it becomes a question as to how necessary it is to turn off the plane's various transmission sources to render it "invisible" from normal ground operations. Presumably the thinking is that any plane that has been hijacked anywhere in the world for any reason will be shot down as the primary response, so the best countermeasure for the hijacker is to make the plane as invisible as possible as soon as possible after the hijacking event has started. But at least for most likely targets, we'll use the G-8 for short hand purposes, the lack of a transponder would not make it all that invisible to the military folks and lack of transponder alone would probably bring out the fighters. -- "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." -- Aaron Levenstein |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - Some thoughts about telemetry, hijacking
Kurt Ullman wrote:
But at least for most likely targets, we'll use the G-8 for short hand purposes, the lack of a transponder would not make it all that invisible to the military folks and lack of transponder alone would probably bring out the fighters. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ries-added-mix ========= The last plot on the military radar's tracking suggested the plane was flying toward India's Andaman Islands, a chain of isles between the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal, they said. http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...timeline_0.jpg The last sighting of the aircraft on civilian radar screens came shortly before 1:30 a.m. Malaysian time last Saturday (1730 GMT Friday), less than an hour after it took off from Kuala Lumpur, as the plane flew northeast across the mouth of the Gulf of Thailand. That put the plane on Malaysia's east coast. Malaysia's air force chief said on Wednesday an aircraft that could have been the missing plane was plotted on military radar at 2:15 a.m., 200 miles northwest of Penang Island off Malaysia's west coast. This position marks the limit of Malaysia's military radar in that part of the country, a fourth source familiar with the investigation told Reuters. When asked about the range of military radar at a news conference on Thursday, Malaysian Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said it was "a sensitive issue" that he was not going to reveal. They also gave new details on the direction in which the unidentified aircraft was heading - following aviation corridors identified on maps used by pilots as N571 and P628. These routes are taken by commercial planes flying from Southeast Asia to the Middle East or Europe and can be found in public documents issued by regional aviation authorities. In a far more detailed description of the military radar plotting than has been publicly revealed, the first two sources said the last confirmed position of MH370 was at 35,000 feet about 90 miles off the east coast of Malaysia, heading towards Vietnam, near a navigational waypoint called "Igari". The time was 1:21 a.m.. The military track suggests it then turned sharply westwards, heading towards a waypoint called "Vampi", northeast of Indonesia's Aceh province and a navigational point used for planes following route N571 to the Middle East. From there, the plot indicates the plane flew towards a waypoint called "Gival", south of the Thai island of Phuket, and was last plotted heading northwest towards another waypoint called "Igrex", on route P628 that would take it over the Andaman Islands and which carriers use to fly towards Europe. ========= Since the Malaysian military is admiting to seeing "something" on their radar, it's not clear if they've been asked (or stated) if they scrambled jets to intercept / investigate. How many times during the last month, the last year, the last decade has the military in those countries scrambled jets to investigate unknown radar contacts? Like any human system, if it's not excercised or utilized regularly there's no garantee it will operate according to plan at any given time. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370 disaster - new theory (asphyxia - air problems)
Doug Miller wrote:
it appears that the plane's transponders were intentionally turned off, and ... It leads *me* to wonder why it's even *possible* to do that. What legitimate reason could there ever be for turning off the transponder on a passenger airliner while in flight? Already been discussed in one of these threads. When on the ground (in a hanger, at a gate, etc) it adds visual clutter to ATC screens if all such aircraft are squaking their beacons. I suggested that the beacons have supplementary power through an interlock with the landing gear - so that when the gear is up, the beacons are powered and CAN'T be turned off. Normal circuit breakers or fuses would provide plenty of safety if the beacons malfunction and need to have their power cut - with said fuse or circuit breaker for the supplementary power not accessible to the crew while in flight. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
flight booking problems | John | Europe | 11 | March 28th, 2013 07:23 PM |
air disaster | Alan[_1_] | Europe | 68 | February 9th, 2008 06:57 AM |
Balconies, a theory | Benjamin Smith | Cruises | 58 | July 12th, 2005 07:11 AM |
flight booking problems | John | Air travel | 9 | March 5th, 2004 09:02 PM |