Malaysia Airlines 777 - Missing

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:09 pm

Before you get to carried away again, nowhere does it say he made a call. For all we know he could have turned on his phone to open a file with a flight plan on it, or to play candy crush. Who knows.....

A different set of sources close to the investigations told the NST that checks on Fariq's phone showed that connection to the phone had been "detached" before the plane took off.

"This is usually the result of the phone being switched off. At one point, however, when the airplane was airborne, between waypoint Igari and the spot near Penang (just before it went missing from radar), the line was 'reattached'.

"A 'reattachment' does not necessarily mean that a call was made. It can also be the result of the phone being switched on again," the sources said.

Brock Landers · Post by **Brock Landers** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:14 pm

Is it possible that if an electrical fire disabled the transponder that it also disabled the radios and they were unable to make a mayday call? Maybe the pilot pulled his cellphone out as a last resort to make some sort of contact with the ground.

Learning2Fly · Post by **Learning2Fly** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:18 pm

I often wonder why some people get so wound up over a post when you specifically state: Suggestion; Theory; "Does not account for all"

Even IF the above was the case, it still does not explain several anomalies in this story.

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

Yet again, either one of the above, or a combination of many does not explain the BS that the mass media has been spewing.

The news has done a great job of mis-representing the system, screwing up the information, and confusing us with false facts:

The plane turned right; The plane turned left
It ascended; it descended
Engine data transmitted; ran out of fuel
Plane would have crashed tail first; difficult to maintain altitude without fuel

Debris found; debris not found
Pings located; pings not located
Tracked by RADAR; fell off RADAR; Military RADAR
SATCOM
Eyewitness accounts
etc., etc.

This is the perfect smoke screen to keep us guessing, and fighting.

My thoughts are:
- the plane has already been found
- someone is covering up an issue
- the data will be scrubbed
- news of plane found will surface
- BS report will follow

There, I said it. Like it, or leave it.

frozen solid · Post by **frozen solid** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:13 pm

Learning2Fly wrote:
Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

I'm not sure I'm following the main thrust of your post, other than I think we can all agree with you that a combination of sensationalist and irresponsible reporting along with the pseudo-science that is running rampant all over social media these days, is almost guaranteed to make sure anyone not immediately connected to the investigation will never understand just what the frack is going on at all until they find the goddamned thing;

but I can answer one of your questions. An electrical fault CAN start one hell of a fire.

Eric Janson · Post by **Eric Janson** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:31 am

Learning2Fly wrote:Yet again, either one of the above, or a combination of many does not explain the BS that the mass media has been spewing.

The news has done a great job of mis-representing the system, screwing up the information, and confusing us with false facts:

The plane turned right; The plane turned left
It ascended; it descended
Engine data transmitted; ran out of fuel
Plane would have crashed tail first; difficult to maintain altitude without fuel
Debris found; debris not found
Pings located; pings not located
Tracked by RADAR; fell off RADAR; Military RADAR
SATCOM
Eyewitness accounts
etc., etc.

This is the perfect smoke screen to keep us guessing, and fighting.

My thoughts are:
- the plane has already been found
- someone is covering up an issue
- the data will be scrubbed
- news of plane found will surface
- BS report will follow

There, I said it. Like it, or leave it.

@Learning2Fly

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion - it is rather curious that you are engaging in exactly the same speculation you are complaining about.

The media have done a terrible job of reporting - frequently trying to make a story out of something that isn't a story.

There is nothing that suggests the aircraft is anywhere other than in the area where they are searching. I'm hoping they find something soon to put a stop to all the bizarre conspiracy theories.

I don't buy the coverup. The problem is people are looking at this from a Western point of view. Malaysia is an Eastern culture and things are done very differently than in the West.

The way they have handled this makes perfect sense from their perspective. Within their culture it is not acceptable to blame anyone - during the first few days everyone was frantically running for cover. Within this culture if you make a decision you are responsible so the default option is always to do nothing - then you can't be blamed.

They are still busy trying to distance themselves from any accountability - read the local English language newspapers for more perspective.

As for their military radar operators - my educated guess is that they were all asleep. Don't expect the Malaysians to make that public - this whole thing is a huge loss of face for them.

Nothing sinister about the way the Malaysians have acted - just another day in S Asia.

As far the rest - I'll give you AF447 as an example. They found the aircraft, performed an investigation and published a very detailed report. No coverups.

Learning2Fly · Post by **Learning2Fly** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:50 pm

Thanks Eric.

I'm not complaining about the speculation, I'm complaining about the people that are complaining about the speculation when it is known
we are clearly speculating.

I'm not familiar with AF447, but I'll check it out some time.

Have you researched TWA800 by chance? That's one of a few stinky reports I've checked out.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:30 pm

Is it possible that if an electrical fire disabled the transponder that it also disabled the radios and they were unable to make a mayday call? Maybe the pilot pulled his cellphone out as a last resort to make some sort of contact with the ground.

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

No.

Learning2Fly · Post by **Learning2Fly** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:02 pm

boeingboy wrote: No.

Why?

Eric Janson · Post by **Eric Janson** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:23 pm

boeingboy wrote:
No.

With all due respect a wiring loom fire could certainly cut power to multiple systems. Wiring loom fires are not unheard of.

You can also research "Kaptan wiring" - I don't know if this is used in the 777.

If you get a chance have a look in your Boeing's E&E compartment.

I am familiar with an event where metal work done on the cabin floor caused metal filings to fall onto a wiring loom located below. Over the course of time these particles frayed the wiring insulation. This resulted in a short and a wiring loom fire. Fortunately this happened on the ground.

There was also an event involving Qantas where water entered the E&E compartment. Very sobering reading.

mdscientist61 · Post by **mdscientist61** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:31 am

Could they have had a bird-strike at that altitude in the middle of the night? Maybe with a large bird like a hawk or an albatross or a vulture or some other large heavy high-flying species which is active at night? What if on top of a hypothetical bird strike, their oxygen system was not properly maintained (having seen previous comments about maintenance perhaps not being what it really could be), so that the O2 would run out fairly quickly. If this alleged bird strike damaged the front of the fuselage, causing cabin pressure to drop, but without harming the engines or flying surfaces, then maybe they could have begun the process of making a turn and setting the autopilot, but not fully completing what they started before their O2 ran out prematurely? Then could the aircraft fly on AP to the site where they are searching today? Just wondering what could explain the hours of apparently stable flight from the place where they turned to the location where the search is now underway in a scenario where there was no nefarious actions by any crew member.

Meddler · Post by **Meddler** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:29 am

It would have to have been the Felix bahmgartner of vultures .

Old fella · Post by **Old fella** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:47 am

Meddler wrote:It would have to have been the Felix bahmgartner of vultures .

Pressurised one at that...........

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:42 am

Is it possible that an electrical "fire", can heat the wire so badly that it either:
a. - melts the wire, burns through some insulation (which is fire resistant/retardant) and then simply smolders (most smoke)
b. - blows out several breakers (beyond reset), or fusible links (cannot be reset)
c. - did not burn a hole in the fuselage, but damaged oxygen pressure lines, damaged essential bus(ses), filled cabin with smoke/no 02 available.
d. - other

a - A fire that starts is not likely going to put itself out, and if it did - to create the amount of smoke you would need to incapacitate the crew you would have major wiring damage...probably to most of the aircrafts systems.
b - it could - but fire is not selective. A lot of these wild theories are suggesting a very selective fire that picks only certain systems.
c - this one is not even remotely possible. It doesn't need to melt a hole in the fuse - but that is what happened because the O2 turns a small fire into a raging blowtorch that will incinerate and start fire to anything within a number of feet of the O2 leak. Its was hot enough to melt aluminum (approx 600 degrees) for gods sake.
d - Again - people seem to think a fire started and it took out the comm and xponder. Again - fire is not selective. The boxes and wire buldles are all together, your going to loose more systems than just that. Look at every other infligh fire incident. If it was small enough and put out by the crew that it was that selective - they land at the nearest airport. The fire was out and the smoke is cleared.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:57 am

If you get a chance have a look in your Boeing's E&E compartment.

I have - have you?

Yes - I am familliar with Kapton wiring, wire loom debris, etc...

Again - your talking about a very picky fire. Now go look in your Boeing or Airbus's E&E bay. All your boxes and wiring bundles run in the same area. Now try to imagine a fire only affecting 2 or 3 systems.....

ehbuddy · Post by **ehbuddy** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:49 pm

Oil Rig worker say's he saw an aircraft on fire heading Eastbound. Still smells like a shoot down to me and a huge cover up.

Guys with fake passports and the aircraft changing direction soon after departure. Seems like an old story from 2001.

Learning2Fly · Post by **Learning2Fly** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:06 pm

Thanks BoeingBoy, that reply is much more informative than your last one.

I'm not totally certain of your position on this incident, so please excuse me if I'm forcing you to retype previous responses.

Do you agree, or disagree that MH370 suffered a similar electrical fire based on the report from Egyptair MS667?

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0

This is what I suspect; I do not believe any of the mass media updates except the fact that the airplane went off course,
and is still missing!

Curious notes:
- an aircraft with severe fuselage damage can still fly - Aloha Air 243

- cockpit electrical fire ABX Boeing 767 - electrical fire due to "conductive component in 02 system"

On June 29, 2008, a Boeing 767 parked at San Francisco International Airport was seriously damaged by fire as it was being prepared for flight.[11] An investigation by the NTSB revealed that a design fault was to blame for the fire, allowing a short circuit between electric wiring and an electrically conductive component of the oxygen system.[12][13]

- Egypt Air cockpit fire

Possible causes: 1. Electrical fault or short circuit resulted in electrical heating of flexible hoses in the flight crew oxygen system. (Electrical Short Circuits; contact between aircraft wiring and oxygen system components may be possible if multiple wire clamps are missing or fractured or if wires are incorrectly installed).

- Asian Airlines top fuselage damage from fire upon crash landing > caused by?

If I had to bet on something, I'd be betting on electrical fire and covered up by Boeing.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:23 pm

There was no fire.

The Asiana fire started at the #2 engine which was seperated from its mounts and laying against the fuse. The fire burned through the skin of the aircraft and set the interior on fire, it then burned through the top of the aircraft. So that has no bearing on anything.

I could believe a cockpit fire if the plane was in a million pieces in the Gulf of Thailand 10 miles from where it disappeared, but again - it flew for 7 hours under control. (autopilot, nav insturments, and so forth) You think it did that looking like this?

No Way - and that was put out by airport fire fighters. If they were in the air the fire would have burned out the entire plane.

Learning2Fly · Post by **Learning2Fly** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:01 pm

Where do you stand on this subject? I tried reading back to get an understanding of what you believe
as it seems you are against any foul play, or aircraft electrical/mechanical failure?

On this date, you posted that the engine may have run out of fuel which you believe is consistent with
a "half-hand shake"

Post subject: Re: Malaysia Airlines 777 - Missing PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:40 am

To this I ask:

If you believe there was no failure - especially electrical, please explain why the transponder was turned off,
and no contact to ATC was made prior to the change of course.

Also , if the engine ran out of fuel why would the STBY battery, and/or RAT not be able to supply enough
reserve to issue a MAYDAY to ATC?

Perhaps I've missed your stance because I have not read back far enough, so please link me to a post
that explains your position. Thanks.

burhead1 · Post by **burhead1** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:27 pm

Learning2Fly wrote:Where do you stand on this subject? I tried reading back to get an understanding of what you believe
as it seems you are against any foul play, or aircraft electrical/mechanical failure?

On this date, you posted that the engine may have run out of fuel which you believe is consistent with
a "half-hand shake"

Post subject: Re: Malaysia Airlines 777 - Missing PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:40 am
To this I ask:

If you believe there was no failure - especially electrical, please explain why the transponder was turned off,
and no contact to ATC was made prior to the change of course.

Also , if the engine ran out of fuel why would the STBY battery, and/or RAT not be able to supply enough
reserve to issue a MAYDAY to ATC?

Perhaps I've missed your stance because I have not read back far enough, so please link me to a post
that explains your position. Thanks.

Just like most accident scenarios talked about on this forum, Most know what happened and are just waiting for the investigation to finish. If I post what most are thinking this thread will be locked or disappear.

pdw · Post by **pdw** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:03 pm

I doubt it. Was thinking that nowhere around are there groups yet that have systematically excluded what's unlikely to have happened. But then realized it happened here completely on its own, a carefully applied process of elimination. So you are likely right on, most on here will be silent on any more speculation since it might well explode into disruptive exchange of details and emotions at this point. Lets just take it real slow ... no mistakes or overstating.

Its about time for a slower unveiling of fact by fact, knowing now the plane is certainly down there somewhere near that "half handshake" about 8 minutes past the final full one, right where all the .. dirt -- dirt . dirt --dirt. (black box sounds) were also centered. Backtracking from where this plane is skillfully placed with no debris-escape but down at the deepest remotest part of that ocean expanse ... then taking it all-the-way back to that clearly stated political fiasco with humiliations of epic proportions on the same day of the event. When it comes down to resorting to "putting two and two together" ... who is there that's left to silence you for simply stating the truth ?

It's most interesting that after watching relentless application of enormous resources that it will end up being summarized as very elementary and extremely remorsefull to contemplate.

Its a real human tragedy no matter how exactly the final history will be written up in the end.