Malaysia Airlines plane missing

[pap]

Personally you could colour me dubious over tha capacities of the UN to detect anything whatsover,any time anywhere.

the UN is just a gabfest that does nothing unless they're forced to by one of the security council members.

On the calm sea front there was a major cyclone in the region now being searched a couple of weeks back, nothing would have stayed where it was on the surface. Anything that was there at that time will probably be washed up on Christmas Island in about 3 months.

 

The UN were correct about WMD in Iraq.

 

My view is that the UN is hampered by the veto powers of five permanent members of the security council. If their resolutions were actually enforced, the world might be a better place. As constituted, it's effectively there to aid the self-interest of five countries.

[Halo Stickman]

US1549 landed safely on the Hudson River. Different aircraft admittedly but would the characteristics been that different?

 

That plane guilded down in a controlled manner onto the river from an altitude of about 3,000 feet. A fantastic performance by the air crew to land it on the river without a single loss of life, but a quite different scenario to that of MH370 descending into the sea from 35,000 feet, whether in a controlled manner or not.

 

However, I suppose miraculous events – or, at least, events that appear miraculous – can happen, so perhaps it’s wrong of me to rule it out entirely. Tell you what, I’ll change my stance on the chances of MH370 landing intact in the Indian Ocean from an 'emphatic no’ to an ‘extremely unlikely’.

Edited 8 April, 2014 by Halo Stickman

[Whitey Grandad]

US1549 landed safely on the Hudson River. Different aircraft admittedly but would the characteristics been that different?

 

This one was a controlled landing when the plane ran out of fuel.

 

[hutch]

That plane guilded down in a controlled manner onto the river from an altitude of about 3,000 feet. A fantastic performance by the air crew to land it on the river without a single loss of life, but a quite different scenario to that of MH370 descending into the sea from 35,000 feet, whether in a controlled manner or not.

 

However, I suppose miraculous events – or, at least, events that appear miraculous – can happen, so perhaps it’s wrong of me to rule it out entirely. Tell you what, I’ll change my stance on the chances of MH370 landing intact in the Indian Ocean from an 'emphatic no’ to an ‘extremely unlikely’.

It is entirely possible. However, I'm not sure that somebody who went to great lengths to seize control of the plane, switch off all of its trackable communication devices to hide from the authorities, and then fly thousands of miles into the desolate southern oceans, would be highly motivated to give it a go. What do you think?

[Halo Stickman]

It is entirely possible. However, I'm not sure that somebody who went to great lengths to seize control of the plane, switch off all of its trackable communication devices to hide from the authorities, and then fly thousands of miles into the desolate southern oceans, would be highly motivated to give it a go. What do you think?

 

Well, as I’ve suspected this has been a case of pilot suicide for some time now, I think the same as you, namely, a lack of motivation to even attempt a safe landing – unless, of course, he’d had second thoughts at some point during the flight.

[buctootim]

This one was a controlled landing when the plane ran out of fuel.

 

 

Exactly - and that one partially broke up only because of the coral reefs immediately below the sea surface.

[buctootim]

It is entirely possible. However, I'm not sure that somebody who went to great lengths to seize control of the plane, switch off all of its trackable communication devices to hide from the authorities, and then fly thousands of miles into the desolate southern oceans, would be highly motivated to give it a go. What do you think?

 

Given there is no wreckage landing the plane intact makes no less sense than keeping it flying it for seven hours but then just letting it fall out of the sky.

Edited 8 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

Exactly - and that one partially broke up only because of the coral reefs immediately below the sea surface.

 

Well, not exactly. One wing caught the water first and then the plane cartwheeled. +

[Whitey Grandad]

None of it makes any sense so far. Given there is no wreckage landing the plane intact makes no less sense than keeping it flying it for seven hours but then just letting it fall out of the sky.

No wreckage yet found.

[Halo Stickman]

Exactly - and that one partially broke up only because of the coral reefs immediately below the sea surface.

 

Are you sure it was the reefs alone that caused that plane to break up? As anyone who’s belly-flopped into a swimming pool from a high diving-board will confirm, crashing into water with high momentum renders the water like solid concrete.

[Wurzel]

That plane guilded down in a controlled manner onto the river from an altitude of about 3,000 feet. A fantastic performance by the air crew to land it on the river without a single loss of life, but a quite different scenario to that of MH370 descending into the sea from 35,000 feet, whether in a controlled manner or not.

 

However, I suppose miraculous events – or, at least, events that appear miraculous – can happen, so perhaps it’s wrong of me to rule it out entirely. Tell you what, I’ll change my stance on the chances of MH370 landing intact in the Indian Ocean from an 'emphatic no’ to an ‘extremely unlikely’.

 

My question was based on assumption the crew were still in full control. Obviously a drop from the sky from 35000 ft would be catastrophic. But if they descended down from 35000ft whilst under full control would that last 3000ft of descent have been much different than the Hudson River landing? Either with or without power? To be fair I don't think it's a likely scenario either but in the absence of any wreckage to date it sounds plausible.

[buctootim]

Well, not exactly. One wing caught the water first and then the plane cartwheeled. +

 

Not exactly, one engine caught on the coral, thats what caused the cartwheel. You should watch this video. http://www.ethiotube.net/video/1925/The-Hijack-and-Crash-of-Ethiopian-Flight-961

[Whitey Grandad]

Not exactly, one engine caught on the coral, thats what caused the cartwheel. You should watch this video. http://www.ethiotube.net/video/1925/The-Hijack-and-Crash-of-Ethiopian-Flight-961

 

No, the wing digs in and slews the plane to the left. The engines are designed to shear off on impact. At that speed the water is virtually solid. The Hudson landing was nothing short of miraculous.

[buctootim]

No, the wing digs in and slews the plane to the left. The engines are designed to shear off on impact. At that speed the water is virtually solid. The Hudson landing was nothing short of miraculous.

 

Okay. You're one of those people who knows more than the air crash investigators. In that case there is nothing else to say.

[Wurzel]

No, the wing digs in and slews the plane to the left. The engines are designed to shear off on impact. At that speed the water is virtually solid. The Hudson landing was nothing short of miraculous.

 

As Buctootin says, the video clearly states it was the impact with the coral that caused the break up, not the landing per se. Also this was an out of fuel landing attempt, we don't know if that was the case with MH370, they might have still been under full control. Interesting in that video to see the hijackers hijacked an Ethipia-Kenya flight but wanted to go to ...... Australia.

[Halo Stickman]

My question was based on assumption the crew were still in full control. Obviously a drop from the sky from 35000 ft would be catastrophic. But if they descended down from 35000ft whilst under full control would that last 3000ft of descent have been much different than the Hudson River landing? Either with or without power? To be fair I don't think it's a likely scenario either but in the absence of any wreckage to date it sounds plausible.

 

That’s a fair point, Wurzel, and hopefully one of our resident pilots could address this. I imagine it depends on how easy it is to control rate of descent, forward speed etc gliding down from 35,000 feet. If they still had fuel and full control then I guess it would be similar to crash landing on solid ground without an undercarriage – at least, for the initial impact and bounces.

 

Regarding the interesting video Tim posted, I concede that it clearly states that the cartwheel was caused by the coral reef, and it would be churlish of me to speculate on what might or might not have happened if the reef hadn’t have been there.

 

But, I’m glad that Tim posted it because I’m starting to feel that my six years in Ditch Group might not have been wasted after all, and, if nothing else, I’ve learnt never again to answer a post with an ‘emphatic no’.

 

Oh, and perhaps I'll take more notice of the aircraft emergency ditching procedures next time I fly!

Edited 8 April, 2014 by Halo Stickman

[Window Cleaner]

Interesting in that video to see the hijackers hijacked an Ethipia-Kenya flight but wanted to go to ...... Australia.

 

 

Obviously a bit dim then, they'd have ended up on Christmas Island and you really,really don't want to go there..well not as an illegal immigrant anyway.

[Spudders]

US1549 landed safely on the Hudson River. Different aircraft admittedly but would the characteristics been that different?

 

Was just going to mention this one myself.

[Whitey Grandad]

Okay. You're one of those people who knows more than the air crash investigators. In that case there is nothing else to say.

 

Coral or water, it's much the same at that speed.

 

Edit: One more factor... Was it still dark at the time of the ditching, if that's what happened?

Edited 8 April, 2014 by Whitey Grandad

[buctootim]

Course it is. Look at the Hudson river plane all battered up by that hard as rock water. My advice to you would be to go to the highest diving board and bellyflop once into water and once into concrete and see which one does more damage. And before you say "but it was doing 200mph" just think how fast the fall through the air is is as opposed to the lateral speed - its about 20mph not 200mph fyi.

 

Edited 8 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Halo Stickman]

We've got be careful to avoid comparing apples to oranges with the Hudson Bay plane and MH370. I think the important factor is the momentum of the plane when hitting the water i.e. its speed x mass. This determines the force it applies to the water as it hits, and the corresponding reaction force applied to the fuselage.

 

What someone needs to do, IMO, is take the known weight and impact speed of the Hudson Bay plane and the known weight of MH370 and use these figures to work out the speed that the MH370 would need to be going in order to achieve the same momentum on impact as the Hudson Bay plane. Then they need to evaluate whether or not this speed was feasible for any given scenario. Only then are we able to make valid comparisons between these two separate incidents, IMO.

 

Of course, the different structural fuselage strengths of both planes should also to be taken into account.

 

By the way, Whitey, before you take Tim up on his belly-flop suggestion, I live near a notorious suicide cliff in Devon; jumpers have two choices:

 

1/ Jump into the sea from 200 feet;

 

2/ Jump into a limestone quarry from 200 feet.

 

Both are equally effective, and those that choose option 1 do not die by drowning.

Edited 8 April, 2014 by Halo Stickman

[buctootim]

 

By the way, Whitney, before you take Tim up on his belly-flop suggestion, I live near a notorious suicide cliff in Devon; jumpers have two choices:

 

1/ Jump into the sea from 200 feet;

 

2/ Jump into a limestone quarry from 200 feet.

 

Both are equally effective, and those that choose option 1 do not die by drowning.

 

Stupid response. Terminal velocity of a human is around 120mph so obviously crashing into almost anything at that speed will be fatal. A 777 has round a 17:1 glide ratio, so for a plane trying to ditch at sea its downward force on the water would be less than 20mph - hence why so many pilots who cannot land at an airport choose to ditch at sea rather than say, fields.

 

btw this is a plane that ditched safely in 1970 in St Croix, so when you were at Ditch group in the 1970s - you were wrong then too. There are 19 other documented instances of large commercial planes ditching on this website. http://www.barnstormers.com/eFLYER/2009/053-eFLYER-FA01-Fla****er.html

Edited 8 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Halo Stickman]

Stupid response.

 

 

 

A stupid response to a stupid suggestion.

 

If you ever find yourself on a commercial airliner that has to ditch into the sea then I wish you good luck.

[buctootim]

I put forward a theory for how the plane could have disappeared apparently leaving no wreckage - ie ditching intact and then sinking and have cited numerous examples of comparable planes over 50 years doing exactly that. Your contribution has been bluster, denial and vacuous statements without putting forward any alternative explanation. Go you.

[Window Cleaner]

Why on earth would whoever was piloting the aircraft want a safe ditch, you don't need to go down to the Southern Indian Ocean to do a nice non-splasher, could have ditched at any time or tried a landing in the Cocos or somewhere else. The flyer didn't want the plane found so he probably sent it into a vertical dive the farthest from civilization that he/she could imagine and let nature take care of the rest..

[buctootim]

Why on earth would whoever was piloting the aircraft want a safe ditch, you don't need to go down to the Southern Indian Ocean to do a nice non-splasher, could have ditched at any time or tried a landing in the Cocos or somewhere else. The flyer didn't want the plane found so he probably sent it into a vertical dive the farthest from civilization that he/she could imagine.

 

Why indeed? Why evade radar and continue to fly it for seven hours? Why not just crash it an hour after take off? Why has no wreckage yet been discovered despite apparently finding the location? None of it makes any sense. Surely if you don't want the plane found you would ditch it gently - not smash it into 10,000 pieces by hitting the water at 400 knots.

 

For what its worth I think the whole flight might have been one last big technical challenge and expression of freedom for a suicidal aviation nut pilot - fly without flight plans, guidance, being spotted or tracked and executing a once in a lifetime landing on water.

Edited 8 April, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

I put forward a theory for how the plane could have disappeared apparently leaving no wreckage - ie ditching intact and then sinking and have cited numerous examples of comparable planes over 50 years doing exactly that. Your contribution has been bluster, denial and vacuous statements without putting forward any alternative explanation. Go you.

 

There are more examples of planes landing without leaving any wreckage

[buctootim]

There are more examples of planes landing without leaving any wreckage

 

I know, but I'm not sure about the tractor beams or everyone chilling out in Diego Garcia.

[derry]

That’s a fair point, Wurzel, and hopefully one of our resident pilots could address this. I imagine it depends on how easy it is to control rate of descent, forward speed etc gliding down from 35,000 feet. If they still had fuel and full control then I guess it would be similar to crash landing on solid ground without an undercarriage – at least, for the initial impact and bounces.

 

Regarding the interesting video Tim posted, I concede that it clearly states that the cartwheel was caused by the coral reef, and it would be churlish of me to speculate on what might or might not have happened if the reef hadn’t have been there.

 

But, I’m glad that Tim posted it because I’m starting to feel that my six years in Ditch Group might not have been wasted after all, and, if nothing else, I’ve learnt never again to answer a post with an ‘emphatic no’.

 

Oh, and perhaps I'll take more notice of the aircraft emergency ditching procedures next time I fly!

 

The minimum rate of descent would be approx. double a normal powered approach say 1500 fpm. There is I would think a great deal of luck in it. We regularly practiced engine out approaches from about 12000 ft but carrying out the approach over water prior to touchdown is much easier as there would be plenty of room. Touching down a wide body aircraft would be extremely difficult because of the length. I would expect at best that the aircraft would break it's back. I thought that a hijacker was fighting the pilot in the Ethiopian aircraft when it hit the water.

[hutch]

 

A stupid response to a stupid suggestion.

 

If you ever find yourself on a commercial airliner that has to ditch into the sea then I wish you good luck.

Not really. The Japanese DC-8 pictured was picked up, dried out and continued to fly for 34 more years after it's unintended landing in the Pacific. Nobody was injured.

[Halo Stickman]

Your contribution has been bluster, denial and vacuous statements without putting forward any alternative explanation. Go you.

 

Oh well, if that's what you think then there's little point in me responding further

[Halo Stickman]

Not really. The Japanese DC-8 pictured was picked up, dried out and continued to fly for 34 more years after it's unintended landing in the Pacific. Nobody was injured.

 

Just to clarify, when I said 'stupid suggestion' I was referring to Tim's suggestion that Whitey belly-flop onto concrete!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'd hesitate to say the idea that a 777 could ditch in the ocean and leave no wreckage is an impossible idea - but 'next to impossible' may be close to the mark.

 

There is a fundamental difference between the problems of ditching older generation airliners and then attempting to do the same with today's 'big twins' such as the Boeing 777 and the Airbus A330. These modern wide bodied airliners are powered by two huge turbofans that are significantly more powerful - and hence much bigger - that the competitively small and low thrust power plants that were employed on older jets such as the Boeing 747 for instance.

 

Even if the pilot manages to avoid stalling the aircraft and puts her down with the wings still level - no mean feat in itself - as soon as those enormous engines (mounted low underneath the wing) hit the water they will act as scoops. The inevitable stress overload that massive impact will impose on the airframe will almost certainly result in the aircraft's immediate and catastrophic disintegration.

 

[Weston Saint]

That plane guilded down in a controlled manner onto the river from an altitude of about 3,000 feet. A fantastic performance by the air crew to land it on the river without a single loss of life, but a quite different scenario to that of MH370 descending into the sea from 35,000 feet, whether in a controlled manner or not.

 

However, I suppose miraculous events – or, at least, events that appear miraculous – can happen, so perhaps it’s wrong of me to rule it out entirely. Tell you what, I’ll change my stance on the chances of MH370 landing intact in the Indian Ocean from an 'emphatic no’ to an ‘extremely unlikely’.

I spoke to West Stand about this. Totally different situation as you say. West Stand knew that in his own air situation his one fear was they would have to come down in the water and he knew no one would have survived. That is why he and his team tried everything to keep it in the air and get the engines going again. There was no other option.

[derry]

Under power the engines are designed to shear but in a water landing would in the act of shearing tip the nose under. I would think landing tail low would cause the engines to hammer the nose in. Landing in open ocean is a much more difficult exercise. That's why I say there is a great deal of luck in it and having a decent pilot doing it. Over my career there were some pilots who really weren't up to it but for a variety of reasons weren't bombed out. Eventually of course they were nailed.

[derry]

I spoke to West Stand about this. Totally different situation as you say. West Stand knew that in his own air situation his one fear was they would have to come down in the water and he knew no one would have survived. That is why he and his team tried everything to keep it in the air and get the engines going again. There was no other option.

 

That was my view Ron. There really is practically no chance of getting away with it and none at all in the dark.

Edited 8 April, 2014 by derry

[melmacian_saint]

I believe the roughness of the sea would come into this as well?

 

We can't really compare the open Indian ocean to a river. I remember a Tunisian plane back in '06 (I think?) that ran out of fuel due to having the wrong fuel indicator installed and ditched in the Med. The pilot (who survived) followed a textbook approach to the ditching, and the plane impacted the water at a perfect angle, in an August sunny day with perfect flying conditions and even then the sea was too rough for the plane not to break in three and for some passengers to be able to make it (about half of around 35 died).

[Tokyo-Saint]

Might have already been posted, if not, here you go Pap.

 

http://www.truth-code.com/2014/03/this-is-real-reason-flight-370.html?m=1

[Verbal]

I thought that a hijacker was fighting the pilot in the Ethiopian aircraft when it hit the water.

 

He was. The hijackers were also fighting someone I knew, Mo Amin, who died in the crash. So in the circumstances that was a pretty amazing water landing.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just to clarify, when I said 'stupid suggestion' I was referring to Tim's suggestion that Whitey belly-flop onto concrete!

 

In my case I think the concrete would come off worse.

[Whitey Grandad]

I put forward a theory for how the plane could have disappeared apparently leaving no wreckage - ie ditching intact and then sinking and have cited numerous examples of comparable planes over 50 years doing exactly that. Your contribution has been bluster, denial and vacuous statements without putting forward any alternative explanation. Go you.

 

I would concede that it's not entirely impossible but extremely unlikely in the dark and I would have thought that it would need to be under control at the time. If manual control the why no contact, unless it was a deliberate act, but why fly all that way and then try to survive. In these circumstances surely others aboard would have been able to evacuate. Perhaps the pros could tell us whether the escape chutes/flotation rafts have EPIRB locators?

[buctootim]

I would concede that it's not entirely impossible but extremely unlikely in the dark and I would have thought that it would need to be under control at the time. If manual control the why no contact, unless it was a deliberate act, but why fly all that way and then try to survive. In these circumstances surely others aboard would have been able to evacuate. Perhaps the pros could tell us whether the escape chutes/flotation rafts have EPIRB locators?

 

I dont think he tried to survive. I think he did it to sink the plane intact without debris or possibly just for the thrill. I know its a bizarre suggestion, but slightly less bizarre than having him skillfully evade radar for 7 hours in order to simply smash the plane into the sea creating loads of wreckage. Its the theory that best fits the facts atm imo. I would imagine all the cabin crew, co pilot and passengers were dead by this point - presumably asphyxiated earlier in the flight. .

Edited 8 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

I dont think he tried to survive. I think he did it to sink the plane intact without debris or possibly just for the thrill. I know its a bizarre suggestion, but slightly less bizarre than having him skillfully evade radar for 7 hours in order to simply smash the plane into the sea creating loads of wreckage. Its the theory that best fits the facts atm imo. I would imagine all the cabin crew, co pilot and passengers were dead by this point - presumably asphyxiated earlier in the flight. .

 

How could he survive and not the rest? The crew all had access to the same oxygen as he did.

[buctootim]

How could he survive and not the rest? The crew all had access to the same oxygen as he did.

 

As far as I understand it the flightcrew control supply of oxygen to the cabin. It feasible he sent the co-pilot on some made up errand, locked the door, depressurised the cabin and gained altitude.

[Whitey Grandad]

As far as I understand it the flightcrew control supply of oxygen to the cabin. It feasible he sent the co-pilot on some made up errand, locked the door, depressurised the cabin and gained altitude.

 

The cabin crew also have bottles (20 minutes?) so he would have to outlast them, or have his own extra supply.

[buctootim]

The cabin crew also have bottles (20 minutes?) so he would have to outlast them, or have his own extra supply.

 

I dont know, I haven't spoken to my BA engineer buddy for a week or so so its just a hypothesis. Doesn't seem improbable that the cockpit would also control the crew cabin oxygen supply as well as the passenger one.

[Whitey Grandad]

I dont know, I haven't spoken to my BA engineer buddy for a week or so so its just a hypothesis. Doesn't seem improbable that the cockpit would also control the crew cabin oxygen supply as well as the passenger one.

 

There are portable respirators, they have to have them so that they can go along the cabin checking the passengers. However, we're probably getting into a bit too much detail here. Let's wait and see.

[Lets B Avenue]

There are portable respirators, they have to have them so that they can go along the cabin checking the passengers. However, we're probably getting into a bit too much detail here. Let's wait and see.

 

No lets have more wild speculation, bluster and denial. Far more fun to read.

[ART]

Why are we repeatedly talking about the plane going down in the dark, when 7 hours after take off would have been broad daylight Australian time?

 

My suggestion earlier that MH370 may have landed on the water intact was not to suggest there were survivors, but provide a possible reason why no debris has been found.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why are we repeatedly talking about the plane going down in the dark, when 7 hours after take off would have been broad daylight Australian time?

 

My suggestion earlier that MH370 may have landed on the water intact was not to suggest there were survivors, but provide a possible reason why no debris has been found.

 

Perth is the same time as Malaysia and the plane is assumed to have travelled south and quite a bit west, maybe an hour or so earlier. The last partial presumed contact was 08:19 Malaysian time and sunrise in Perth was 06:11 that day so possibly around dawn, maybe just after.