1oldman2 said:
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.
