Matt-100If the phones have survived then that would suggest the aircraft came down over land (otherwise the water damage would have killed them, and besides I doubt they’d have signal over water). However I find it improbable it’s come down over land, so I’d probably question the sources.
I certainly don’t believe that would be the case starikki, any shoot down would have to come from the Malaysian prime minister himself, and given the aircraft wasn’t flying to any specific target (eg Kuala Lumpur) at the time it’s unlikely. I heard here in the UK, priministerial protocol suggests a known hijacked aircraft needs to come within 30 seconds of central London before the go ahead is given. It really is a last resort.
The Telegraph is reporting that Boeing sent out an airworthiness directive to all 772 operators in November to look out for fatigue cracks (after a 16 inch crack was found in one aircraft) under the SATCOM antenna in the fuselage. The directive went onto say that these fatigue cracks could result in sudden decompression or mid-air “break up”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10691089/Malaysia-Airlines-mystery-US-issued-warnings-over-Boeing-777-weak-spot.html
Matt-100Sorry, you are correct, I misinterpreted an update on the Aviation Herald.
Matt-100One theory I’ve seen suggested on PPRUNE and elsewhere is a major electrical failure disabling many systems including the communications and the cabin pressurisation system. The pilots turned back and descended but were overcome by hypoxia and the plane just flew on until it crashed. Any thoughts about how likely that is?
That is very plausible, although the flight deck’s oxygen supply can last for 30+ minutes – more than enough time to make an emergency descent down to 10000 feet. I also read a theory on the Telegraph website that said if the aircraft had had a complete and catastrophic electrical failure that meant all electrical inputs were down they could have been without GPS and basic flying instruments such as Altimeter and Air Speed.
Knowing they were in deep trouble the pilots’ plan may have been to track the coast down the Malacca Straight at low altitude back to KUL in the south of the peninsular where they could have made flybys (dipping the wings etc) before landing and hoping not to hit anyone.
I don’t buy it though, flying blind like that is unheard of and I’m pretty sure the secondary/back-up instruments are analogue and mechanical so shouldn’t be affected by electrical failure.
Matt-100At least we know why they’re looking in the Malacca Strait now, the military tracked them all the way over northern Malaysia to the Strait flying at low altitude. Residents of a small port town in north eastern Malaysia have also reported a low flying jet (~1,000ft) over the island in the early hours of March 8th – although these sightings have yet to be confirmed.
The big question for us if it does turn up in the Malacca Strait is why? If there was an on board emergency you’d divert back to the nearest airport and send out a mayday. As for the Iranians, modern cockpits are pretty much impenetrable for anyone outside – it’s highly improbable they were able to storm the cockpit.
So regrettably we must now focus on the crew, could they have intentionally downed the aircraft? It’s happened before. I’ve been researching all I can on the pilots and cabin crew from various tribute news articles and websites and they all seemed very “normal” and looked professional, certainly nothing from their Facebook pages and pictures to suggest they were about to commit suicide with the lives of 238 others.
This really is turning out to be a great mystery of our time.
Matt-100Hong Kong’s air traffic control centre has confirmed that a Cathay Pacific flight flying from HKG-KUL reported seeing a large field of debris at 17:30 local time on Monday 10th about 80 miles south east of Ho Chi Minh City in the South China Sea.
A civilian cargo ship in the area was requested to re-route to the location for a follow up investigation. This ship has reportedly found a large amount of debris believed to be from the aircraft. A Vietnamese search and rescue ship is currently enroute.
Matt-100It’s being reported that after Malaysian air traffic control lost radar contact with the jet at 01:22 local time, they asked a company 777 (MH88 bound for Narita) that was about 30 minutes ahead of MH370 and flying over Vietnamese airspace to try and establish radio contact with MH370 and relay messages.
At 01:30 (8 minutes after radar contact was lost), the pilots of flight MH88 managed to establish a link. However, after relaying the message asking if they had passed into Vietnamese airspace yet the reply they received was just unintelligible mumbling made worse by the static of the radio. After this, the radio link was lost.
Matt-100Nothing “fits” really. This one is a puzzle.
Agreed; what we have is an aircraft with a near perfect safety record, an airframe with no previous major incidents to its name (bar a ground collision at the wing-tip 1.5 years ago) and one of Malaysia’s most experienced captains.
I do think the Malaysian’s are looking in the wrong area completely. They should stop the search to the west and pool resources into looking further south and east, just my two cents anyway.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226265[/ATTACH]
Matt-100Certainly an experienced captain with an avid interest in flying, spending his life doing what he loved.
Matt-100I’d be very surprised if this crash turned out to be terrorist related, in this day and age where security meticulously scan and re-scan passengers I just can’t see it happening (Kuala Lumpur is hardly a shanty airport in central Kenya, the security screening meets international standards and is the same everywhere in the world) – I’m sure the issue of the false passports will turn out to be one for immigration authorities to scratch their heads over rather than as a lead for the FBI. The two are probably unrelated but it’s, of course, being played up by the media.
If we learnt anything from AF447, it’s that previous safety records are there to be broken. The 777 is a reliable, safe, aircraft no doubt about it but sometimes incidents just happen (there are over 1,000 of them in operation). I agree with DXB, I think it was a sudden structural failure which either blew the aircraft apart there and then, or a structural failure which led to a great loss of control rendering it un-flyable.
I don’t believe the aircraft turned back towards Malaysia as is being reported, because if they had enough time to make a rational decision as a crew to turn back then they probably had enough time to send out a distress signal (unless they lost communication as a result of a possible structural failure).
Although one thing is for sure, we won’t really know what went on until they find and analyse those black boxes, so let’s hope they can.
Matt-100It’s a tricky one for Qantas, it would seem everyone’s eating their breakfast, lunch… and dinner. For those looking for impeccable service, they now have an array of Asian carriers to choose from all offering plentiful connections to Eruope and mainland Asia (Singapore, Cathay, and even to a certain extent nowadays Thai and Malaysian) – and for those looking for bargain seats they now have an array of low cost carriers (Scoot, Air-Asia X, JetStar [okay, yes. Owned by Qantas]) but all this growth from SE Asian airlines has really hit the kangaroo hard.
I assume the 20 A380’s were a last ditch attempt to add capacity to their ailing market share, but with no long-term strategy in place stating what to do with them, it was really like “we’ll order 12 now, perhaps in 8 years we’ll know what to do with them?”… An ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’ event which makes the airline appear shockingly mismanaged. It was only as recently as 2006 that a further 8 options were extended, still no alarm bells flashing Qantas?
The Emirates deal was another example of Qantas’ slapdash approach to coming up with solutions. What did Qantas gain? Links to Europe? Hardly, Emirates are the ones who fly the planes to all the destinations so they’re the ones who get their hands on the passenger’s cash. Feeder traffic to their domestic market? Hardly, Emirates’ metal already fly direct to 5 Australian cities – so unless you’re looking to fly to somewhere a little off the beaten track (Alice Springs, Longreach etc), which is unlikely, there is no feeder traffic.
I hate to say it but it doesn’t look good for Qantas, and I have nothing against the airline’s product itself (I actually greatly admire it), but Australia as a country is just too far out to make it financially viable for Qantas to offer the same breadth of destinations to the west the Middle Eastern carriers can or to mainland Asia and the US that the Asian carriers can.
Because of the airline’s inability to “hub”, it can’t fully exploit its economies of scale and drive prices down. So prices are higher and choices are lower :applause:
Qantas will continue to decline until it reaches a size the country can sustain (it is simply too big), perhaps they should take a look across the Tasman at Air New Zealand – New Zealand is equally as ‘out of the way’, if not more so, and the country has a population of just 4.5 million but the airline is growing from strength to strength.
Matt-100I’ll answer your questions in succession;
1) That’s really a subjective thing and also depends on the industry that’s being discussed, I know my Dutch counterparts are always overwhelmed by how cheap things are here.
2) I believe the EU stopped (or are trying to stop) all that, which is why so many regional airports across Europe rely so heavily on Ryanair’s custom.
3) With regard to Heathrow, no other airport does more with less – period. It’s hard to really see how Heathrow could be any more efficient as it stands at the moment.
4) The unrivaled growth potential of London and the UK over the next couple of decades compared to other western European countries will mean if a business wants to invest in the UK, it will. An overcrowded airport is not a deal breaker when you’re trying to get into the region’s fastest growing economy.
The truth is, if you book early enough, Heathrow and London airports as a whole are still the cheapest option when travelling to all four corners of the globe compared to CDG and AMS (and often FRA as well).
Matt-100You can usually see into the cockpit window pre-flight as you walk down the air bridge, or at the end when one of the two comes out of the cockpit to say thank you to the passengers along with the purser as you disembark.
Matt-100And the lithium-ion saga strikes back, the hard reality of what happens when manufacturers try and shave off every available pound in weight. Boeing took a huge risk in many of the weight saving measures it took on the 787, suffice to say this one didn’t pay off.
Matt-100If it’s the same guy that took this video, it’s not the pilot.
Matt-100If it’s the same guy that took this video, it’s not the pilot.
Sign In
