Mar 17, 2014, 3:08 pm
Last edit by: JDiver
PLEASE READ FIRST: WELCOME and MODERATOR NOTE
Welcome to the MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
Welcome to the MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk!
Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that covers the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel.
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
Respect our Diversity - link to this guideline
FlyerTalk members come from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We are as diverse in our makeup as we are alike in our passion for frequent flyer programs. Because we all bring a unique perspective to the forum, our collective experience is broadened, and we gain new insights.
Our diversity demands that we respect each other. Due to the inherent constraints of the Internet, humor, sarcasm, language and slang can be easily misinterpreted - especially when crossing cultural boundaries.
When posting a message, pay extra care to how it might be interpreted. And when you come across a post that offends you, read it with an eye toward giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue with a post, please contact the member privately or contact a moderator (click on the
button). Do not make a situation worse by publicly responding.
FlyerTalk members come from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We are as diverse in our makeup as we are alike in our passion for frequent flyer programs. Because we all bring a unique perspective to the forum, our collective experience is broadened, and we gain new insights.
Our diversity demands that we respect each other. Due to the inherent constraints of the Internet, humor, sarcasm, language and slang can be easily misinterpreted - especially when crossing cultural boundaries.
When posting a message, pay extra care to how it might be interpreted. And when you come across a post that offends you, read it with an eye toward giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue with a post, please contact the member privately or contact a moderator (click on the
button). Do not make a situation worse by publicly responding.
In order to a) keep the original thread focused on confirmed news and known facts, and b) allow folks a place to discuss their ideas about what might have happened, the MH370 moderators and Community Director have decided to open this thread.
Here are the expectations:
1. The normal FT TOS apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions on-thread). And please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected respect our diversity , and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, orientation, etc." Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. Please do continue to be attentive to the sensibilities of the families of those on the flight. Think about if you were them what you would and would not want to see posted. Speculation about what happened is permissible; please, though, do not indulge in inflammatory or overly-lurid descriptions that could well be hurtful.
4. Overly / extravagantly exaggerative posts such as conspiracy theories, posts beyond the realm of science and known facts, etc. as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously, information that has been posted in the News thread wiki or FAQ, may be deleted. E.g. the aircraft was vaporized.
In terms of housekeeping, posts may get moved from the "news" thread if and as needed, and posts that do not conform to these simple expectations, above, will be deleted.
Also note: this wiki is locked; changes can only be made by moderators.
Thank you.
Your MH370 Moderation Team
aBroadAbroad; cblaisd; JDiver; l'etoile; NewbieRunner; oliver2002; Prospero
and Community Director
SanDiego1K
MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
Apr 2, 2014, 5:21 pm
#1516
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
As far as direct radio contact and declaring at least a pan-pan-pan, well, you got me. Maybe they were troubleshooting before declaring and there was an acceleration of pressure loss? Maybe they were already starting to become generally hypoxic when signing off for the night? Could there have been some kind of localized electrical failure in certain systems that would affect pressurization and possibly knock out some of the warning systems, as well? Having never sat left seat, I can't say if this is even plausible in an aircraft as automated and advanced as a 777, but I suppose it could happen under the right circumstances.
From what we've heard, it appears there were two significant incidents which resulted in the aircraft making turns. One over the South China Sea, the second over the Straits of Malacca.
- The first incident resulted in the plane making the westward turn back over the Malaysian peninsula.
- The second incident resulted in the plane turning south towards the southern Indian Ocean.
Whatever happened within the Malacca Straits, with respect to any other turns, appears unclear.
That last turn sending the plane out across the southern horizon is the most likely time to place the 'hypoxia' theory. But that theory does not explain the previous maneuvers.
Hypothetically..
The first incident may have been due to someone entering the cockpit and commandeering the aircraft. The pilot does what he is told, the is plane turned west.
The second incident may have been the pilots attempt to take back the aircraft, resulted in both pilots being fatally wounded and the plane is intentionally turned south and sent out across the sea away from land.
I say hypothetically because the meager evidence we have can allow for many interpretations. Those two pilots could have been hero's.
Suppose, just for arguments sake, the pilots learned what the intention of the hi-jacker was, to use the plane like another 911 attack?
If you were the pilot, would you switch to a heading away from land and turn on autopilot, then make some attempt to wrestle with the hi-jacker?
At least if you failed, the plane could not be used as a weapon, it would just fly on until it runs out of fuel.
Speculation is all we have, even the Inmarsat & AAIB people are applying speculation, which is why no-one is able to find anything on the Ocean.
To date, even professional speculation has turned up nothing.
Last edited by Wickerman; Apr 2, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Apr 2, 2014, 6:00 pm
#1517
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 97
I don't think hypoxia can account for the turns the aircraft appears to have made.
From what we've heard, it appears there were two significant incidents which resulted in the aircraft making turns. One over the South China Sea, the second over the Straits of Malacca.
- The first incident resulted in the plane making the westward turn back over the Malaysian peninsula.
- The second incident resulted in the plane turning south towards the southern Indian Ocean.
Whatever happened within the Malacca Straits, with respect to any other turns, appears unclear.
That last turn sending the plane out across the southern horizon is the most likely time to place the 'hypoxia' theory. But that theory does not explain the previous maneuvers.
Hypothetically..
The first incident may have been due to someone entering the cockpit and commandeering the aircraft. The pilot does what he is told, the is plane turned west.
The second incident may have been the pilots attempt to take back the aircraft, resulted in both pilots being fatally wounded and the plane is intentionally turned south and sent out across the sea away from land.
I say hypothetically because the meager evidence we have can allow for many interpretations. Those two pilots could have been hero's.
Suppose, just for arguments sake, the pilots learned what the intention of the hi-jacker was, to use the plane like another 911 attack?
If you were the pilot, would you switch to a heading away from land and turn on autopilot, then make some attempt to wrestle with the hi-jacker?
At least if you failed, the plane could not be used as a weapon, it would just fly on until it runs out of fuel.
Speculation is all we have, even the Inmarsat & AAIB people are applying speculation, which is why no-one is able to find anything on the Ocean.
To date, even professional speculation has turned up nothing.
From what we've heard, it appears there were two significant incidents which resulted in the aircraft making turns. One over the South China Sea, the second over the Straits of Malacca.
- The first incident resulted in the plane making the westward turn back over the Malaysian peninsula.
- The second incident resulted in the plane turning south towards the southern Indian Ocean.
Whatever happened within the Malacca Straits, with respect to any other turns, appears unclear.
That last turn sending the plane out across the southern horizon is the most likely time to place the 'hypoxia' theory. But that theory does not explain the previous maneuvers.
Hypothetically..
The first incident may have been due to someone entering the cockpit and commandeering the aircraft. The pilot does what he is told, the is plane turned west.
The second incident may have been the pilots attempt to take back the aircraft, resulted in both pilots being fatally wounded and the plane is intentionally turned south and sent out across the sea away from land.
I say hypothetically because the meager evidence we have can allow for many interpretations. Those two pilots could have been hero's.
Suppose, just for arguments sake, the pilots learned what the intention of the hi-jacker was, to use the plane like another 911 attack?
If you were the pilot, would you switch to a heading away from land and turn on autopilot, then make some attempt to wrestle with the hi-jacker?
At least if you failed, the plane could not be used as a weapon, it would just fly on until it runs out of fuel.
Speculation is all we have, even the Inmarsat & AAIB people are applying speculation, which is why no-one is able to find anything on the Ocean.
To date, even professional speculation has turned up nothing.
Apr 2, 2014, 6:24 pm
#1518
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 10,323
Executive Travel magazine:
How Pilots Handle Aircraft Decompression
Nov/Dec-2011
A short quote:
Most often, the first indication that something is wrong is the cabin altitude warning horn blasting in the cockpit. Concurrently, the pilots experience abdominal pain and the feeling of having the wind knocked out of us, because trapped gas expands with the loss of cabin pressure. Our first move is to don our oxygen masks, check the regulator to 100 percent oxygen and establish communication with the copilot. Depending on the altitude of the aircraft and the fitness level of the pilots when the decompression occurs, the UTC, or useful time of consciousness, can be as little as 5 to 10 seconds.
Once the oxygen masks are in place, it is difficult to exhale as oxygen is forced into our lungs through automatic pressure breathing. So we reach for the response checklist and begin the steps to safely descend the aircraft to a lower altitude where the crew and passengers can breathe without supplemental oxygen.
Once the oxygen masks are in place, it is difficult to exhale as oxygen is forced into our lungs through automatic pressure breathing. So we reach for the response checklist and begin the steps to safely descend the aircraft to a lower altitude where the crew and passengers can breathe without supplemental oxygen.
A rapid decompression could have happened in the cockpit. An example of this possibility was British Airways Flight 5390 (wikipedia); an improperly-installed panel of its windscreen failed and the plane's captain was blown halfway out of the plane.
Apr 2, 2014, 7:09 pm
#1519
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
I might add...
It is my understanding that cell phone transmissions from MH370 were handled by the inflight entertainment unit.
Surely, if this anonymous 'third party' made sure the transponder & ACARS were disabled, then wouldn't they also have disabled the entertainment unit?
The final report on this mystery is likely to be a best seller.
Last edited by Wickerman; Apr 2, 2014 at 7:50 pm Reason: The "I might add" paragraph.
Apr 2, 2014, 9:07 pm
#1520
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 80
The transcript: perhaps it's clutching at straws here but it's true that the MH370 did not read back the new (Ho Chi Min) radio frequency. Perhaps an innocent lapse - but I heard on here that what typically happens is that the pilot reads back the new frequency while simultaneously presetting it or checking it on their radio. That routine would be disrupted if they had no intention of tuning in to the new tower - which could be the reason for the lapse.
Apr 2, 2014, 10:08 pm
#1521
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 91
The transcript: perhaps it's clutching at straws here but it's true that the MH370 did not read back the new (Ho Chi Min) radio frequency. Perhaps an innocent lapse - but I heard on here that what typically happens is that the pilot reads back the new frequency while simultaneously presetting it or checking it on their radio. That routine would be disrupted if they had no intention of tuning in to the new tower - which could be the reason for the lapse.
Hmmm... yes, it is true that all previous frequency changes were repeated back save the last one. There's also one other little bobble; I have checked copies of the transcript on different sites and at one point MH370 is quoted as identifying as MAS 377 and the last statement I quote is the tower frequency being repeated:
12:32:13 (MAS 370) MAS 377 request taxi.
12:32:26 (ATC) MAS 37….. (garbled) … standard route. Hold short Bravo.
12:32:30 (MAS 370) Ground, MAS 370. You are unreadable. Say again.
12:32:38 (ATC) MAS 370 taxi to holding point Alfa 11 Runway 32 right via standard route. Hold short of Bravo.
12:32:42 (MAS 370) Alfa 11 standard route, hold short Bravo MAS 370.
12:35:53 (ATC) MAS 370 Tower.
12:36:19 (ATC) (garbled) … Tower … (garbled)
(MAS 370) 1188 MAS 370, thank you.
Apr 3, 2014, 6:03 am
#1522
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 10,323
So, even if the searchers recover the CVR, there won't be any audio on it from the time when the plane made its turns. Without the audio, I doubt that investigators will be able to determine what happened in the cockpit at that time.
Apr 3, 2014, 8:55 am
#1523
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Agreed, it's possible, albeit extremely unlikely. However, if the aircraft ditched even reasonably intact, it would have remained on the surface for long enough for the emergency locator beacon to emit a signal. No signal was detected, which is what one would expect if the ditching was not only not "in one piece", but was much more violent, such as a high speed nose-dive.
Apr 3, 2014, 9:03 am
#1524
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Programs: CO Silver, HHonors Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 982
It's been discussed in the past that the crew most likely had an agreed upon code to enter the cockpit if need be. It was also said that the FAs could speak to the ground if necessary as well in an emergency.
Apr 3, 2014, 9:31 am
#1525
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
Agreed, it's possible, albeit extremely unlikely. However, if the aircraft ditched even reasonably intact, it would have remained on the surface for long enough for the emergency locator beacon to emit a signal. No signal was detected, which is what one would expect if the ditching was not only not "in one piece", but was much more violent, such as a high speed nose-dive.
Last edited by cblaisd; Apr 3, 2014 at 10:21 am
Apr 3, 2014, 12:57 pm
#1526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
It's not unreasonable to think that the location would be the same for all 777.
Agreed, the elt signal will not be detected if it's below the surface. But it's on the top of the fuselage, which would be above water if the aircraft landed upright.
My point is that since no elt signal was detected, the aircraft must not have landed in a manner that left the top of the fuselage exposed, even for a short time.
Apr 3, 2014, 1:10 pm
#1527
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
Apr 3, 2014, 3:59 pm
#1528
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
It was also said that the FAs could speak to the ground if necessary as well in an emergency.
Apr 3, 2014, 4:55 pm
#1529
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
I'm wondering about the search methodology.
Here is a map showing the cumulative search areas to-date:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...6_02.04.14.gif
Here is a map showing the ocean currents in the area:
The aircraft went down 26 days ago. I'm not sure what the exact drift speed is, but assuming 2 knots, the total drift over 26 days is 1248 nautical miles.
Originally, the crash location was assumed to be south west of where they are currently searching. Then it was decided that the aircraft must have gone down north east of the original location, in the area where they are currently searching. If the assumed crash location is correct, any surface wreckage will be well north of where they are currently searching, so why aren't they searching further north? Coincidently, the only way the current search area makes sense is if the aircraft went down in the area where they originally started searching. However, depending on how far south it went down, surface wreckage may have drifted to the east or to the north. The only way surface debris will be found in the area in which they are looking is if the crash location is to the south.
Anyone else wondering about this?
Here is a map showing the cumulative search areas to-date:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...6_02.04.14.gif
Here is a map showing the ocean currents in the area:
The aircraft went down 26 days ago. I'm not sure what the exact drift speed is, but assuming 2 knots, the total drift over 26 days is 1248 nautical miles.
Originally, the crash location was assumed to be south west of where they are currently searching. Then it was decided that the aircraft must have gone down north east of the original location, in the area where they are currently searching. If the assumed crash location is correct, any surface wreckage will be well north of where they are currently searching, so why aren't they searching further north? Coincidently, the only way the current search area makes sense is if the aircraft went down in the area where they originally started searching. However, depending on how far south it went down, surface wreckage may have drifted to the east or to the north. The only way surface debris will be found in the area in which they are looking is if the crash location is to the south.
Anyone else wondering about this?
Last edited by cblaisd; Apr 3, 2014 at 5:16 pm Reason: Removed inline image of first map since too large and causing horizontal scrolling; converted to link
Apr 3, 2014, 7:39 pm
#1530
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
I'm wondering about the search methodology.
.
.
Originally, the crash location was assumed to be south west of where they are currently searching. Then it was decided that the aircraft must have gone down north east of the original location, in the area where they are currently searching. If the assumed crash location is correct, any surface wreckage will be well north of where they are currently searching, so why aren't they searching further north? Coincidently, the only way the current search area makes sense is if the aircraft went down in the area where they originally started searching. However, depending on how far south it went down, surface wreckage may have drifted to the east or to the north. The only way surface debris will be found in the area in which they are looking is if the crash location is to the south.
Anyone else wondering about this?
.
.
Originally, the crash location was assumed to be south west of where they are currently searching. Then it was decided that the aircraft must have gone down north east of the original location, in the area where they are currently searching. If the assumed crash location is correct, any surface wreckage will be well north of where they are currently searching, so why aren't they searching further north? Coincidently, the only way the current search area makes sense is if the aircraft went down in the area where they originally started searching. However, depending on how far south it went down, surface wreckage may have drifted to the east or to the north. The only way surface debris will be found in the area in which they are looking is if the crash location is to the south.
Anyone else wondering about this?
I'm sure 'they' must have known that debris does not drift east, or south east. So I had to wonder just what info they had received in order to make such a seemingly disastrous shift.
One day we read about a satellite shot showing 300? floating objects, then another account of a single object some 23m long? These were never confirmed.
Then, in the blink of an eye, the whole search area shifted N/E? and since that day they have found nothing!
I have to wonder if there has been some over-analysis going on here, the result of which is that they are now looking in the totally wrong area.