News and theories about the missing Malaysian plane

[ImaginaryNumber]

SailorAlan, thank for your informative posts.

Mind you, a MD-80? went straight in to a Florida swamp, and was it never found? the swamp swallowed everything that time, leaving only a few disturbed plants.

ValuJet Flight 592 | WIKIPEDIA

...A group of fishermen witnessed the crash and reported that "The plane was flying in a steep right bank, after which it turned so that the nose was facing downward in a nearly vertical angle. It plummeted into the swamp followed by an explosion, shock wave, and a massive geyser of water." They reported seeing no external damage to the DC-9 or any sign of fire or smoke other than the engine exhaust. A group of sightseers in a small private plane also witnessed the crash and provided a nearly identical account, stating that Flight 592 seemed to "disappear" after impacting the swamp and they could see nothing but scattered small debris and part of an engine near the crash site...

 

[Sailor Alan]

I want to know what happened to the mango's. I heard somewhere they got their own agent, and were touring. Has anybody heard about this?

 

[Mr Efficiency]

Mangosteens ! Mangoes are different fruit.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

New evidence of cockpit tampering | THE TELEGRAPH

A report released by Australian air crash investigators has revealed that the missing Boeing 777 suffered a mysterious power outage during the early stages of its flight, which experts believe could be part of an attempt to avoid radar detection...

David Gleave, an aviation safety expert from Loughborough University, said the interruption to the power supply appeared to be the result of someone in the cockpit attempting to minimise the use of the aircraft's systems. The action, he said, was consistent with an attempt to turn the plane's communications and other systems off in an attempt to avoid radar detection.

"A person could be messing around in the cockpit which would lead to a power interruption," he said. "It could be a deliberate act to switch off both engines for some time. By messing about within the cockpit you could switch off the power temporarily and switch it on again when you need the other systems to fly the aeroplane..."

The aircraft experienced another such log-on request almost six hours later, though this was its seventh and final satellite handshake and is believed to have been caused by the plane running out of fuel and electrical power before apparently crashing, somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean. The other five handshakes were initiated by the satellite ground station and were not considered unusual...

The report also notes that the plane's in-flight entertainment system delivered a satellite message 90 seconds after the first power failure but not after the second failure hours later. This, it says, "could indicate a complete loss of generated electrical power shortly after the seventh handshake"...

 

[sharpii2]

I have a hard time believing the plane made any kind of a landing on the Indian Ocean.

More likely than not, if it maintained a glide path, one wing hit the water before the other.

Such would rip that wing off the plane, causing the plane to flip. as the other wing would still be producing lift.

This would also cause the plane to turn, so the fuselage would hit the water at an angle, rather than straight on.

Such should cause the fuselage to break up into several large chunks, throwing all kinds of flotables into the water. There would also be some kind of a slick from the unusable fuel and other fluids.

Now, suppose the pilot was still alive and deliberately crashed on some deserted island. Then, no floating wreckage and no or very little fire, as almost all the fuel is gone.

If there were no ships or planes in the area and no satellites looking down at that particular point and time, there would be no witnesses.

The wreckage would be discovered sometime later, once some one stumbled upon it while visiting the island.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Wonder if there are any deserted islands within range in the general direction the plane was heading at the time.

 

[RHP]

I want to know what happened to the mango's. I heard somewhere they got their own agent, and were touring. Has anybody heard about this?

There's more to the Mango-things than meets the eye. All this talk of flipping the power on and off, 'Goodnight' and ducking under radar is just a cover up for the fact someone stole 4 ton of Mango-things.

Have the authorities googled the points on the supposed flight path where these things have high consumption and/or recently witnessed an unexplained increase in supply?

Find the mango eaters and you'll find the plane.

 

[Mr Efficiency]

I have a suspect, a supermarket check-out girl who told me mangosteens are delicious.

 

[RHP]

Don't hold back, the Chinese are offering a $25 million reward for leads....

 

[rwatson]

Don't hold back, the Chinese are offering a $25 million reward for leads....

Well that's it then - if they don't think there is any hope at all ......

 

[Sailor Alan]

I have a hard time believing the plane made any kind of a landing on the Indian Ocean.

More likely than not, if it maintained a glide path, one wing hit the water before the other.

Such would rip that wing off the plane, causing the plane to flip. as the other wing would still be producing lift.

This would also cause the plane to turn, so the fuselage would hit the water at an angle, rather than straight on.

Such should cause the fuselage to break up into several large chunks, throwing all kinds of flotables into the water. There would also be some kind of a slick from the unusable fuel and other fluids.

Now, suppose the pilot was still alive and deliberately crashed on some deserted island. Then, no floating wreckage and no or very little fire, as almost all the fuel is gone.

If there were no ships or planes in the area and no satellites looking down at that particular point and time, there would be no witnesses.

The wreckage would be discovered sometime later, once some one stumbled upon it while visiting the island.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Wonder if there are any deserted islands within range in the general direction the plane was heading at the time.

Normally, and with almost any other airplane, i would agree with you. This would lead inevitably to a debris field, but the lack of such is to me very significant.

As a ‘fly by wire’ airplane, the 777 has its autopilot connected, and turned ON all the time. It cannot be turned off, merely the input is switched from a human pilot inputing commands, to an instrument (the FMC/FMS, basically a GPS with tracking etc). Some commentator stated someone had to turn the autopilot ON, but strictly speaking that is not correct, its always ON.

We took the opportunity of this sophisticated control system to design the 777 to be statically unstable in flight and have neutral stability during maneuvers. This makes the airplane simply impossible for any human to operate (fly) unless the autopilot is running the flight controls. This system is sometimes called auto-stability, but the 777 takes it far further than any previous commercial aircraft. The 787 is even more extreme, being unstable in all axis, in all flight regimes. We do this to reduce trim and empenage drag. For any pilots reading, this is like having the CG not just well aft, but having it several times further aft than ever allowed. Even if you try to trim the plane, it is trying to swap ends, either vertically, or horizontally, or both at once.

All this means is that the autopilot was engaged, and as the fuel ran out, the emergency ram air turbine (RAT) would deploy, and power the quadruplicated automatic flight system, and quadruplicated flight controls to keep the plane ‘flying’ all the way down to the water. Even if the plane stalled, which the flight system would not allow, the plane would have remained wings level at all times.

This seems to suggest to me that the plane ‘belly flopped’ (a aeronautical technical term) onto the surface of the sea, and sank.

If the engines were pulled off by this impact, i.e. the sheer, or fuse pins, activated, then i would expect fuel, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil on the surface of the sea. You are right, there would be some unusable fuel in the wing tanks too. Now this CAN be spotted from satellites, using the same process ships are spotted dumping bunker at sea. Again the lack of this evidence prompts me to think something very unusual happened.

Bringing us back to the mangosteens, the desert island (none mapped in the area, but that could be wrong), and/or the plane being in Iraq being converted by Isis? They could make weekly or daily flights to/from Europe with volunteers?

 

[sharpii2]

Normally, and with almost any other airplane, i would agree with you. This would lead inevitably to a debris field, but the lack of such is to me very significant.

As a ‘fly by wire’ airplane, the 777 has its autopilot connected, and turned ON all the time. It cannot be turned off, merely the input is switched from a human pilot inputing commands, to an instrument (the FMC/FMS, basically a GPS with tracking etc). Some commentator stated someone had to turn the autopilot ON, but strictly speaking that is not correct, its always ON.

We took the opportunity of this sophisticated control system to design the 777 to be statically unstable in flight and have neutral stability during maneuvers. This makes the airplane simply impossible for any human to operate (fly) unless the autopilot is running the flight controls. This system is sometimes called auto-stability, but the 777 takes it far further than any previous commercial aircraft. The 787 is even more extreme, being unstable in all axis, in all flight regimes. We do this to reduce trim and empenage drag. For any pilots reading, this is like having the CG not just well aft, but having it several times further aft than ever allowed. Even if you try to trim the plane, it is trying to swap ends, either vertically, or horizontally, or both at once.

All this means is that the autopilot was engaged, and as the fuel ran out, the emergency ram air turbine (RAT) would deploy, and power the quadruplicated automatic flight system, and quadruplicated flight controls to keep the plane ‘flying’ all the way down to the water. Even if the plane stalled, which the flight system would not allow, the plane would have remained wings level at all times.

This seems to suggest to me that the plane ‘belly flopped’ (a aeronautical technical term) onto the surface of the sea, and sank.

If the engines were pulled off by this impact, i.e. the sheer, or fuse pins, activated, then i would expect fuel, hydraulic oil, and lubricating oil on the surface of the sea. You are right, there would be some unusable fuel in the wing tanks too. Now this CAN be spotted from satellites, using the same process ships are spotted dumping bunker at sea. Again the lack of this evidence prompts me to think something very unusual happened.

Bringing us back to the mangosteens, the desert island (none mapped in the area, but that could be wrong), and/or the plane being in Iraq being converted by Isis? They could make weekly or daily flights to/from Europe with volunteers?

Wow! Alan.

You seem to be saying that the 777 and the 787 are totally reliant on on on board computers to fly.

What if something clogs up the pitot static system?

Now the computer doesn't know how high the plane is, how fast it's moving through the air, or even if it's in a stall or not.

How can it fly the plane now?

IIRC, a French 777 crashed in the Atlantic due to a problem like this. In the "Air Crash Investigation" episode, they gave the impression that the pilots could have done something about it, had they known what was wrong.

From what you're saying now, it appears that the matter was completely out of their hands.

Could they have saved themselves by deploying the RAT?

It seems that the RAT is capable of giving the computer at least some of the data it's missing, due to the stopped up pitot static system.

The French 777 apparently did a belly flop, just as you say this plane could have. The French plane left a huge part of its tail section behind.

Is it really possible to steal a 777, without its mandatory systems identifying it everywhere it goes?

 

[sharpii2]

Oops! Wrong plane.

The French plane was not a 777, but an Airbus.

 

[Sailor Alan]

Wow! Alan.

You seem to be saying that the 777 and the 787 are totally reliant on on on board computers to fly.

What if something clogs up the pitot static system?

Now the computer doesn't know how high the plane is, how fast it's moving through the air, or even if it's in a stall or not.

How can it fly the plane now?

IIRC, a French 777 crashed in the Atlantic due to a problem like this. In the "Air Crash Investigation" episode, they gave the impression that the pilots could have done something about it, had they known what was wrong.

From what you're saying now, it appears that the matter was completely out of their hands.

Could they have saved themselves by deploying the RAT?

It seems that the RAT is capable of giving the computer at least some of the data it's missing, due to the stopped up pitot static system.

The French 777 apparently did a belly flop, just as you say this plane could have. The French plane left a huge part of its tail section behind.

Is it really possible to steal a 777, without its mandatory systems identifying it everywhere it goes?

I have to be very careful how i answer this. i do not want to discourage you from flying in any way, or to detract from the exemplary standard for safety kept over the decades. You are far safer on the airplane than on the drive to the airport. This has always been true, and will remain so.

Air France flight 447 was an Airbus A-330, and not a Boeing product. The Airbus A-330 is ‘nearly’ fly by wire, though exactly how much i do not know. The rudder pedals are still mechanically connected to the rudder for instance. After every aircraft incident (crash, or near miss), regardless of make or model, Boeing conducts a sort of ‘post mortem’, and though i was not one of the investigators, i did attend their report-out of AF Flt 447. It contained lessons for us all and i remember parts of it still.

Unfortunately I am not at all familiar with the details of the Airbus system. Airbus apparently uses a primary flight computer each for the pilot and co-pilot, and each of these have a back up. There is an auxiliary flight computer as well, making a total of 5. These drive at least three separate and independent flight control jack systems from at least three separate hydraulic systems. some systems may be electric, rudder and flaps for instance.

The individual primary airspeed instruments (there are 3) are fed their information from their own pitot heads, and the auxiliary, or backup (third) system is fed from another. Normally each instrument is fed from its own pitot head, but should one fail (see below), any instrument can be fed from any pitot head. You should see these pitot heads on the outside, just below the cockpit windows, at least on Boeing airplanes. You will also see the AOA sensors, tiny wind vanes that sense the angle the air is approaching the airframe.

There are two other sources of air data for these flight computers, inertial navigation, and GPS. On Boeing airplanes these are both triplicated, giving a total of 9 sources of speed, altitude, pitch up (or down), vertical speed, direction, and in the case of the GPS (and technically the inertial system) absolute position in 3D space.

As the Flt 447 approached turbulence, the aircraft was pitched up, and for some unknown reason the autopilot disconnected. This is just like the cruise control on your car disconnecting if you touch the brake pedal, even if you do not break. Unfortunately, the flight controls also reverted to a different set of ‘laws’ giving far more sensitive control response. Again a bit like some cars that have a ‘performance’ mode, where a push button activates a faster throttle response, firmer suspension, and faster automatic gear changes at higher RPM’s. Mine does anyway, though i don't use it.

This is where the mistakes began. The PIC (pilot in command, in this case a co-pilot) tried to level the plane using his side-stick controller. He over-controlled, several times, but this did not cause the incident. He also noticed his airspeed indicator was reading zero, and at that moment the stall warning buzzer sounded. This may have confused the pilots, but should not have. None of the pilots observed standard good airmanship. Standard procedure is to have each pilots instrument feeding from a different pitot head, so any discrepancy is noted immediately. There is then a procedure to discover which one, or both were incorrect.*

Equally, regardless of anything else going on, any pilot knows to put the nose of the aircraft down when the stall warning sounds. This allows the airplane to build up flying speed again absolutely regardless. That is what the stall warning is for. In fact, and for no reason anyone can even guess, they added full power (totally acceptable), and pulled the nose UP (totally unacceptable). Some journalist wrote it is difficult (he said impossible) to fly an airplane without speed indication. This is rubbish, there are many other instruments and indications as to what the airplane is doing available. For instance, the vertical attitude indicator, (originally called the artificial horizon), will show if the plane is level fore and aft as well as side to side. The AOA (angle of attack) indicator will show the airplane pitch attitude relative to local airflow too. The rate of climb/dive meter will show instantaneous rate of change of altitude. Even the oldest instrument on board, the compass, will show relative angle of the earth to the compass card. I often fly using the climb/dive meter as reference, (absolute altitude IS important in controlled airspace) though strictly speaking i suppose i should use airspeed for this.

Regardless, the PIC held the airplane in a climb until it reached 38,000ft, its absolute ceiling at the current weight and load. Then the plane did stall, and though still at 100%N, actually 102%N (100%N is full engine power) it started to slip backwards and downwards though still pointed upward. Now the Captain climbed into his seat, but even he maintained the plane at a high angle of attack. In fact he maintained this attitude for the next 3 minuets whilst the plane slid down and impacted the sea still with the nose more than 45 degree above horizontal. The plane hit the water tail first, at about 45 degrees nose high. If at any time during this incident, any pilot had pushed the controls forward, OR switched the autopilot back on, the plane would have recovered by itself and all would have been saved.

Boeing uses four completely separate and independent flight control computers, each fed primary flight information by all 9 sources. These computers are different chip sets, different languages (one is “Fourth”, perhaps another Cobal), and completely different code sets, written by different people (usually in different US states), so there can be no common fault effecting all of them at once. Each computer controls a completely separate set of hydraulic jacks, and in many cases these drive different sections of the control surface. Actually each of these jacks are duplicated as well, and all jacks can be driven from any of four independent hydraulic systems. Initial (first) failure is calculated as 10 to the 9th.

The RAT only supplies power (electric and hydraulic) to vital systems in the event of complete power failure on the plane. I don't remember all the systems supported, but it includes all flight instruments, all flight computers, and at least half the hydraulic jacks. It generates sufficient power to lower the landing gear and flaps though not at the same time. In fact batteries are also available, and do power some auxiliary systems, emergency lighting (cockpit and cabin) and the PA system, probably other systems too.

Pitot tubes, wing leading edges, AOA indicators, engine inlets, windscreens, and a few other items are de-iced, or anti-iced during flight. De-iced means shedding ice as it accumulates, sometimes using a rubber boot on the leading edge of a wing (look at your next commuter airplane), but anti-ice never lets ice build up at all. I do not know the Airbus system, but have heard it is automatic, i.e. turns on when the airplane deems it is needed. Boeing has a manual anti-ice system and we expect the pilot to turn it on when he deems it necessary. I know pilots who simply turn this on before or after take off, and turn it off on arrival. It uses waste heat anyway, so no extra fuel burnt.

In the Air France Flt 447 case, one theory is the pitot heads iced up. Whilst possible, this is a little unusual, assuming the system was actually on. It is not normal for all three pitot heads to ice at the same time, and regardless any pilot can switch his flight speed reading, on his primary (head down) display, his auxiliary display, his back up display, and even his engine status display, from pitot head(s) to GPS(s), or inertial navigation(s) at any time. This is part of standard training.
Subsequently Airbus changed their pitot heads on the A-330 twice. Boeing usually uses two different makes of pitot head, and even makes it impossible to install the wrong one, by making the hole patterns different.

Air France Flt 447 was a very sad but completely unnecessary loss of life. We learned a lot from it, as we will from this Malaysian flight.

 

[SamSam]

Well, I'd be leery flying a Malaysian plane, their luck is not good lately.

 

[Mr Efficiency]

Well, I'd be leery flying a Malaysian plane, their luck is not good lately.

Luck could have been improved by not continuing to over-fly areas where a number of aircraft have been shot down recently. A number of international carriers have wisely abandoned routes that traverse the area, since the trouble of recent months. Not Malaysian.