MYSTERY IN THE SKY - WTF? - MH370 & MH17 & QZ8501 & More

[Midwest Spy]

Your theory doesn't make sense.

I have a hunch that five days from now when he quotes his quoted post for posterity, it'll all fall into place.

Quoting oneself is good for one's soul.

So is speaking in the third person when in a public setting.

MS says so.

[FAHQTOO]

Cortney Love knows where the plane is. If I wasn't on my phone, I would show you.

Courtney Love
Musician/Band · 317,218 Likes

I'm no expert but up close this does look like a plane and an oil slick. http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mala...map/128148 … prayers go out to the families ‪#‎MH370‬ and its like a mile away Pulau Perak, where they "last" tracked it 5°39'08.5"N 98°50'38.0"E but what do I know?

Thanks to you and HotD for the photo.

I was LMAO when I saw this last night.

[sally]

Call me crazy, but instead of terrorists and suicidal pilots could it maybe have been something simple like a malfunction with the plane?

[HairOfTheDog]

Call me crazy, but instead of terrorists and suicidal pilots could it maybe have been something simple like a malfunction with the plane?

That would have been the most likely explanation to me, too.

But, the various investigating agencies have confirmed that tracking devices were shut off, which is something only someone trained in aviation would know how to do. So, "malfunction" seemed to be scratched off the list by the experts.

I read this article earlier today, though. Some pilots (not part of the investigating team) are weighing-in with the possibility that an electrical malfunction caused a fire -- prompting the pilots to turn off all circuit breakers (per training). Makes sense to me, but I don't know if that's something the experts already explored and ruled out.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Paci...ical-error

[Blindgreed1]

Duchess?... You gonna post that interesting tid bit from a pilot that flies 777's?

[Duchess]

I'm waiting for permission to do so.

[Blindgreed1]

I'm waiting for permission to do so.

He didn't write it. He copied and pasted from another forum. It's all yours cupcake.

[ZEROSPHERES]

It's all yours cupcake.

If Duchess won't post it, you should, BG1

[Duchess]

I have concerns because he said he got it from a former boss.

[Blindgreed1]

From a retired AF colonel, now a pilot for AA, flying the Boeing 777. ,

Just a quick update with what I know about the Malaysia 777 disappearance. The Boeing 777 is the airplane that I fly. It is a great, safe airplane to fly. It has, for the most part, triple redundancy in most of its systems, so if one complete system breaks (not just parts of a system), there are usually 2 more to carry the load. It’s also designed to be easy to employ so 3^rd world pilots can successfully fly it. Sometimes, even that doesn’t work…as the Asiana guys in San Fran showed us. A perfectly good airplane on a beautiful, sunny day…and they were able to crash it. It took some doing, but they were able to defeat a bunch of safety systems and get it to where the airplane would not help them and the pilots were too stupid/scared/unskilled/tired to save themselves

There’s many ways to fly the 777 and there are safety layers and redundancies built into the airplane. It is tough to screw up and the airplane will alert you in many ways (noises, alarms, bells and whistles, plus feed back thru the control yoke and rudder pedals and throttles. In some cases the airplane’s throttles ‘come alive’ if you are going to slow for a sustained period of time) All designed to help. But, it’s also non-intrusive. If you fly the airplane in the parameters it was designed for, you will never know these other things exist. The computers actually ‘help’ you and the designers made it for the way pilots think and react. Very Nice.

Now to Malaysia. There are so many communication systems on the airplane. 3 VHF radios. 2 SatCom systems. 2 HF radio systems. Plus Transpoders and active, ‘real time’ monitoring through CPDLC (Controller to Pilot Data Link Clearance) and ADS B(Air Data Service) through the SatCom systems and ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) thru the VHF, HF and SatCom systems. The air traffic controllers can tell where we are, speed, altitude, etc as well as what our computers and flight guidance system has set into our control panels. Big Brother for sure! However, most of these things can be turned off.

But, there are a few systems that can’t be turned off and one, as reported by the WSJ, is the engine monitoring systems (not sure what the acronym for that is, but I’m sure there is one….it’s aviation…there has to be an acronym!). The Malaysia airplane, like our 777-200’s, use Rolls Royce Trent Engines (as a piece of trivia….Rolls Royce names their motors after rivers….because they always keep on running!) Rolls Royce leases these motors to us and they monitor them all the time they are running. In fact, a few years back, one of our 777’s developed a slow oil leak due and partial equipment failure. It wasn’t bad enough to set off the airplane’s alerting system, but RR was looking at it on their computers. They are in England, they contact our dispatch in Texas, Dispatch sends a message to the crew via SatCom in the North Pacific, telling them that RR wants them to closely monitor oil pressure and temp on the left engine. Also, during the descent, don’t retard the throttle to idle…keep it at or above a certain rpm. Additionally, they wanted the crew to turn on the engine ‘anti ice’ system as the heats some of the engine components.

The crew did all of that and landed uneventfully, but after landing and during the taxi in, the left engine shut itself down using it’s redundant, computerized operating system that has a logic tree that will not allow it to be shut down if the airplane is in the air…only on the ground. Pretty good tech. Anyway, the point was, that RR monitors those engines 100% of the time they are operating. The WSJ reported that RR indicated the engines on the Malaysia 777 were running normally for 4 to 5 hours after the reported disappearance. Malaysia denies this. We shall see.

Parting shot. If you travel by air, avoid the 3^rd world airlines. Their operators and maintenance are substandard. Substandard when traveling by Bus or Boat isn’t so bad when the engines quit. You just stop on the water or by the side of the road. Not so in airplanes. My piece of advice….if traveling by air use 1^st world airlines. So, that leaves USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, Japan and just a few others. Avoid the rest….just my opinion. If you get a real deal on air fare from ‘Air Jabooti’…skip it. Oh, there are a lot of the ‘developing’ countries that use expatriate pilots from the 1^st world. Emirates and Air Jordan come to mind and are very safe. As is Cathay Pacific. Air Pakistan and Egypt Air…not so much. Do the research or just drop me a note. I’ll give you my opinion.

And don't EVER get in an Airbus!!

[Blindgreed1]

I have concerns because he said he got it from a former boss.

I edited out any personal info.

[ZEROSPHERES]

I have concerns because he said he got it from a former boss.

I edited out any personal info.

Thanks BG1

[Blindgreed1]

I have concerns because he said he got it from a former boss.

I will take full resposibility, key word is FORMER.

[ZEROSPHERES]

And don't EVER get in an Airbus!!

^^^ I would love to know why he said that. AA just merged with US Airways whose large contingent of Aribus planes was based on their easy cross-training of flight crews and their wide body design. Could it be the amount of composite materials in the structure of the plane? I know the entire tail is composite and have wondered sometimes if it may be overstressed and might under perform.

[Maggot]

Those pesky Russians can build a huge airplane.

[aussiefriend]

They are now saying it's in the Maldives, I am like, of course the Maldives, who knew?

[blueberryhill]

I, for one, get nervous when on an airbus. In the past, they have had
rudder problems causing pilots to completely lose control of airplane. The plane dives. climbs, turns, leaving an out of control aircraft. I used to watch the Cable program which used to feature airplane accidents, FAA reports, causes, etc.... the rudder problem has supposedly been taken care of, but still causes me concern...
When I researched the 777, their was concern re engine and all airlines were advised in 2013 to correct this problem. Sorry, I can't recall the details. Even so, if an engine went out, the other one should work to land safely on land.
I just feel that this is a mechanical problem which crew was unable to resolve....this is my theory and I am sticking to it.....

[Midwest Spy]

Other than the pitot tube (airspeed sensors) icing over on Air France flight 447 (an Airbus A330-200) I'm not aware of Airbus issues.

I know the Boeing 737 experienced some tragedies in the 1990's but it seems air travel has become very safe during the last decade.

The Boeing 777 in question would most likely only crash if someone wanted it to.

[blueberryhill]

I am embarrassed; I misspelled "there" in comment #117. I wrote their and I do know better.
MS. Re your comments re problems with airbus. The A320 had electrical issues (failures); A380 had problem with wing design and what I was talking about was the 737 and all the problems with rudder issues; there are several documented crashes before this problem was corrected. I would quote research here, but my typing is limited because fingers not working so well these days. Just type in airbus, 737 and u will see what I am talking about. Cheers!

[Midwest Spy]

@Blueberry- what I was getting at was specifically the 737. That is a Boeing product not an Airbus airplane.

Yes, the 737 had a couple of bad rudder issues. 1994 US Air and the United (I believe) flight near Colorado Springs in 1991(?).

Thanks for info regarding the A320. I wasn't aware of that.

Duchess: I do NOT talk about any airplane issues with my wife at all. BTW, she's got her meds all ready to go.