Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 crash

[Astronuc]

Search for missing flight MH370 gives up possible personal items
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/africa/mh370-debris-madagascar/index.html

There is also a piece of airplane debris that washed up on Kangaroo Island near Adelaide, S. Australia.

 

[Astronuc]

Missing MH370 investigators may have searched wrong area for 2 years in hunt for doomed flight
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/missing-ma...they-scoured-wrong-area-since-2-years-1571745

There has to be a better way in this day and age. Commercial aircraft (perhaps limited to international flights) need a real-time tracking system so that they just don't disappear.

 

[mheslep]

Any tracking system installed aboard the aircraft can probably be defeated by malevolent crew or hijacker. The existing radar transponders have been turned off in several such cases, e.g. three of 911 aircraft.

 

[DiracPool]

It's looking more and more as if this were a carefully planned suicide mission. Nobody wants to believe that someone could be this selfish, but I think all clues are pointing to it. To have every tracking system fail so perfectly and the evidence disposed of so perfectly really smacks of human ingenuity:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/asia/mh370-pilot-simulation/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/mh370-pilot-flew-suicide-route-on-home-simulator.html

 

[1oldman2]

Finally something new, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36938480

 

[rootone]

Finally something new, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36938480

Interesting, but I think the headline was a bit misleading.
It sort of implies a deliberate intent to crash the plane into the sea, yet the evidence is only pointing at the likelyhood that the decent was a controlled one.
If this was a suicide, why would the pilot be bothered about how well controlled the decent was?
It seems more plausible to me that *something* had knocked out critical systems, but the pilot later regained some amount of control of the flight surfaces.
Knowing that he was at this stage far from any land, he may have been attempting to ditch the aircraft in a manner such there was a least a chance of some survivors.

 

[1oldman2]

It sort of implies a deliberate intent to crash the plane into the sea, yet the evidence is only pointing at the likelyhood that the decent was a controlled one.

I noticed that also, I was hoping to hear more but since the article nothing more has been said, (that I have seen anyway).
I think 370 is going to be a very long running mystery with no solid answers at the end.

 

[Borg]

If this was a suicide, why would the pilot be bothered about how well controlled the decent was?

Probably to minimize debris so that the plane wouldn't be found. If a pilot soft landed it like the plane that landed on the Hudson, he could have opened a window in the cockpit and cracked open a back door. There would have been almost no floating debris in that case.

 

[1oldman2]

Probably to minimize debris so that the plane wouldn't be found. If a pilot soft landed it like the plane that landed on the Hudson, he could have opened a window in the cockpit and cracked open a back door. There would have been almost no floating debris in that case.

I don't have the reference handy at the moment but in reading theories early in this incident I read a "power dive" straight in approach would leave the hardest to detect debris field, not sure of the reasoning on that.

 

[Borg]

I don't have the reference handy at the moment but in reading theories early in this incident I read a "power dive" straight in approach would leave the hardest to detect debris field, not sure of the reasoning on that.

I do remember hearing that one also. I still think that the soft landing scenario would leave nothing and would be in the category of impossible to detect.

 

[rootone]

The open ocean has big waves in it, unlike the Hudson river.
I think that this would reduce considerably the possibility of a large plane controlled landing in it and remaining mostly intact.

 

[jim hardy]

If this was a suicide, why would the pilot be bothered about how well controlled the decent was?

pilots tend to love flying , and airplanes.
Out of respect and perhaps even affection for the ship he'd "set 'er down gently" ..

 

[1oldman2]

pilots tend to love flying , and airplanes.
Out of respect and perhaps even affection for the ship he'd "set 'er down gently" ..

Interesting thought, a pissed off psycho just might "prang" the bugger though.

 

[1oldman2]

The open ocean has big waves in it

Yup, that's got to be a huge complication to ditching. It seems if someone had been in control at touch down they would have had plenty of time to get out an SOS type alert, but nothing, so one could reasonably assume it was suicide/murder.

 

[nsaspook]

The open ocean has big waves in it, unlike the Hudson river.
I think that this would reduce considerably the possibility of a large plane controlled landing in it and remaining mostly intact.

It can have huge waves or be as smooth as glass (Becalmed/sea state 0) in the Indian Ocean. I don't know the sea condition in the area during the 370 crash.
https://weather.com/news/news/indian-ocean-currents-mh370-debris-plane

https://www.livingoceansfoundation.org/fantastic-flying-fishes/
You can see how smooth the sea can be in these Flying Fish pictures. We would watch them skim the surface for really long distances in the IO during the right conditions.

 

[Monsterboy]

Yup, that's got to be a huge complication to ditching. It seems if someone had been in control at touch down they would have had plenty of time to get out an SOS type alert, but nothing, so one could reasonably assume it was suicide/murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lot-practised-suicide-route-Indian-Ocean.html

MH370 pilot 'practised flying suicide mission on flight simulator weeks before the airliner disappeared on same route' (So why are we just hearing about it?)

 

[rootone]

The Daily Mail is known for inaccurate and sensationalist news, and also as an organ of bigoted right wing opinion.
If this was derived from anything said by the official investigators I might take it seriously.
It's not at all uncommon for pilots to practice emergency landing situations using a simulator.
So unless something was found on the simulator which very much matched up with details of events as far as they are known, I don't think it counts as evidence

 

[Borg]

The Daily Mail is known for inaccurate and sensationalist news, and also as an organ of bigoted right wing opinion.
If this was derived from anything said by the official investigators I might take it seriously.
It's not at all uncommon for pilots to practice emergency landing situations using a simulator.
So unless something was found on the simulator which very much matched up with details of events as far as they are known, I don't think it counts as evidence

Would the Wall Street Journal be more credible for you?
Malaysia Confirms MH370 Pilot Simulated Flight Into Indian Ocean

 

[rootone]

and the first sentence of that report is ...

Malaysia’s transportation minister said it was one of thousands of simulated paths and doesn’t suggest a deliberate crash

 

[Borg]

and the first sentence of that report is ...

Malaysia’s transportation minister said it was one of thousands of simulated paths and doesn’t suggest a deliberate crash

It's still an odd path that wasn't previously reported. It wouldn't surprise me that there were thousands of simulated paths on a pilot's flight simulator but why would a professional pilot practice ditching in a remote part of the ocean?

 

[mheslep]

and the first sentence of that report is ...

That's misinformation. The first sentence from the article is,

"The pilot of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 had plotted a flight path into the Indian Ocean, but it is only one of “thousands” of routes that was on his home simulator and doesn’t confirm he crashed the plane, Malaysia’s transport minister said." Highlight is mine.

 

[NascentOxygen]

I don't quite understand the issue over the word "into". Its usage implies that the path crossed into airspace over the Indian Ocean but didn't extend so far as to emerge from Indian Ocean airspace. Do the recovered flight simulator records contradict this?

 

[nsaspook]

I don't quite understand the issue over the word "into". Its usage implies that the path crossed into airspace over the Indian Ocean but didn't extend so far as to emerge from Indian Ocean airspace. Do the recovered flight simulator records contradict this?

I would assume the word into for a simulator path means into the drink like into the ocean after running out of fuel with nothing to land on, not even a small rock, before maybe McMurdo in Antarctica..

 

[Astronuc]

NY Post reports, "wing flap that washed ashore on an island off Tanzania has been identified as belonging to missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, Australian officials said Thursday." The flap was found in June by residents on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania.

The wing flap brings to five the number of pieces of debris the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has determined are almost certainly, or are definitely, from Flight MH370.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/15/mh370-wing-washes-up-off-tanzania/

 

[1oldman2]

More info being released. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/asia/mh370-crash-landing-report/
According to end of flight simulations run by the ATSB, the plane was spiraling in its final moments, descending at up to 25,000 feet per minute (284 miles per hour).
Airlineratings.com aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas told CNN the report debunked theories that the pilot had been flying the plane when it landed in the sea.
"The really important news in this report is that the flap found in Tanzania was stowed. Therefore there was no way this airplane was being flown by anyone," he said.
"It was out of control, ran out of fuel and spiraled into the sea at high speed."

 

[russ_watters]

More info being released. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/asia/mh370-crash-landing-report/
According to end of flight simulations run by the ATSB, the plane was spiraling in its final moments, descending at up to 25,000 feet per minute (284 miles per hour).
Airlineratings.com aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas told CNN the report debunked theories that the pilot had been flying the plane when it landed in the sea.
"The really important news in this report is that the flap found in Tanzania was stowed. Therefore there was no way this airplane was being flown by anyone," he said.
"It was out of control, ran out of fuel and spiraled into the sea at high speed."

I haven't had a chance to read the report yet, but the commentary that:

"The really important news in this report is that the flap found in Tanzania was stowed. Therefore there was no way this airplane was being flown by anyone..."

...sounds to me like an overreach in the day and age of suicide-by-pilot (Germanwings) and hijacking with struggle for control (9/11 Flight 93). I'm just concerned that they could be generating their own self-reinforcing speculative narrative and don't think these other theories should be dismissed so readily. I'll be interested to see what basis they have for favoring the simulation of a death spiral vs a controlled plunge or cockpit struggle.

Moving beyond that, if they are right, their theory points to a likely scenario of cabin depressurization and flight crew incapacitation. That leads to two additional questions/complaints/recommendations:

1. Why in 2016(2014) would a flight control computer be programmed to essentially just give up and allow an uncontrolled crash? Presumably, the plane was flying on autopilot the entire way and then ran out of fuel, causing the autopilot to disengage. Why does the plane not even bother to check if the flight crew is controlling it before/during/after it disengages? The least it could do in that scenario is hold straight and as level as possible for as long as possible, including activating back-up power systems when needed. That would at least give an unconscious-but-not-dead flight crew a chance to wake up without a windshield full of ocean and no chance to recover.

2. De-pressurization causes enough accidents that the flight control computer of a modern jetliner should be programmed to deal with them. Rapid de-compression can incapacitate the flight crew so fast they can't react and slow de-compression can incapacitate them so slowly they don't realize they are dying. It would be fairly easy for the flight control computer to deal with both situations in one set of protocols:

Step 1: Alarm.
Step 2: If flight crew ignores the alarm for any reason, for more than a minute or two, alarm louder. And I mean so loud/disruptive (flashing displays?) that they can't hold any other thought in their head except to deal with the alarm (stall warning should be that way too).
Step 3: If flight crew ignores the alarm for more than, say, 10 minutes and/or the flight control computer detects the crew is not flying the plane (either it is on autopilot or detects no control inputs), automatically descend to 10,000 feet.
Step 4: If, after half an hour, the flight crew has not started dealing with the emergency, turn around, fly back to the origin airport and land.

IMO, we have passed a threshold in airline safety where pilots cause most crashes and the primary responsibility for the safety of the plane should therefore rest with the flight control computer.

 

[jim hardy]

Presumably, the plane was flying on autopilot the entire way and then ran out of fuel, causing the autopilot to disengage.

Does it disengage?

Somebody on PPRUNE (Pilot's blog) ran 'out of fuel' on a flight simulator of that model plane .
The autopilot does its best to level maintain flight. With no engine power there's a ram air turbine , basically a windmill, that powers essentials.

To best of my recollection the plane porpoises down, in a series of cycles :
nose down to prevent stall, speed picks up as plane falls then it levels out and tries to hold level flight until airspeed drops again, nose down to gain airspeed again, and so on
so speed when it hits the water depends on where in that cycle they are.

Apparently the pilot cannot deploy flaps with only ram air power.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/3585...at-electrics-what-slats-flaps-can-deploy.html

Carnage is right, with the loss of both engines (AC BUS 1+2) the RAT should deploy automatically. On deploying it powers the blue hydraulic system, which drives the emergency generator by means of a hydraulic motor. This generator supplies the AC ESS BUS, and the DC ESS BUS via the ESS TR. This will result in P1 displays working and P1 comms working. As for the Hydraulics at low speeds (which you will be in the glide) only the blue Hydraulics will give pressure so you can deploy Slats only. The checklist though calls for you to move the flap lever to Flap 3 position incase of residule pressure giving a little more. Interestingly last time I was in the sim we were doing Dual Eng Failures from altitude and it was debated as to the merits of starting the APU, risk is that if you attempt a start and it doesn't start for some reason then you have severly reduced your available battery capacity. If it does start however then you regain electrics, possibly can start the Yellow Electric pump to gain full flap availability etc.

So i too think that article's premise is dubious.

old jim

 

[NascentOxygen]

The needle-in-a-haystack search for the missing MH370 is set to resume later this month, with a new search team operating on a "no find no fee" basis. They plan to use autonomous mini-submarines to search the seabed of the Indian Ocean in an area north of that already searched, and have entered into negotiations with Malaysia for a $90 million payment on finding the plane.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5231259/High-tech-ship-en-route-resume-hunt-MH370.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Latest deep-sea search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 gets underway​

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ch-missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-128801273

CC @DaveC426913

 

[DaveE]

OK, really, I'm not trolling. I'm actually curious and a bit confused about the level of interest.

What's the point? Why do we need to find the wreckage? What useful information is likely to be gained?
Is this like Fermat's last Theorem, just a puzzle to be solved? Or maybe something to get page views on SM?

Aircraft are lost and never found frequently (albeit smaller than this one). People in Darfur, Somalia, Burma, Gaza, and Afghanistan need closure for their loved ones deaths. Why this one?