Malaysian 777 missing
#861
So if you were to find some examples where structural failure DID cause the loss of the aircraft would you accept that as conclusive?
You seem to like research.
I'll start you off with China Airlines 611 and JAL 123.
EasternATC nails it with respect to your ideas of psychology 101.
Always and never seldom work out. Try and remember that when you write your story.
#862
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 281
If you did have a fire in the cockpit you would not necessarily have a structural failure. You would expect the pilots to depressurize the aircraft, descend, and head for the nearest suitable airport. The aircraft did descend, and did a 120 degree left turn in the general direction of an airport with a 12,500 foot runway.
#863
You are correct, there is no evidence of terrorism.
There is also no evidence of aircraft malfunction.
Nobody has come to a conclusion, they have offered their best guess to explain the several possible ways an aircraft like the 777 may go off the tracks and vanish.
If there are actual intel leads, you are not going to hear them on the news or from a paid general on cnn.
There is also no evidence of aircraft malfunction.
Nobody has come to a conclusion, they have offered their best guess to explain the several possible ways an aircraft like the 777 may go off the tracks and vanish.
If there are actual intel leads, you are not going to hear them on the news or from a paid general on cnn.
Absent information of that, the focus should be on mechanical problems/crew physiological impairment issues/etc
#864
An otherwise perfectly normal jumbo jet in the ocean is "evidence of an aircraft malfunction", at least for me. And the terrorist/suicide theory has gained a lot of fans on this thread, and in the media.
Absent information of that, the focus should be on mechanical problems/crew physiological impairment issues/etc
Absent information of that, the focus should be on mechanical problems/crew physiological impairment issues/etc
Is it not possible to focus on all plausible explanations until they are proven to be incorrect?
It appears you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.
#865
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 128
I'm not saying this is definitely what happened to the Malaysian aircraft, but at this point we don't know enough to discount any theory.
#866
I will repeat, again, my position:
There is no factual information or intelligence-wise "leads" based information, or any indications, that this was terrorist related.
Because a bunch of rocket scientist self-appointed internet crash experts on APC have decided "it must be terrorism" and same group has reviewed past accidents and since "this has never happened" before, have concluded it is terrorism, does not make it so.
Again, as of now (03-26) we have no, none, zero, indications of terrorism (or suicide or similar mal-intent by people occupying the cockpit).
There is no factual information or intelligence-wise "leads" based information, or any indications, that this was terrorist related.
Because a bunch of rocket scientist self-appointed internet crash experts on APC have decided "it must be terrorism" and same group has reviewed past accidents and since "this has never happened" before, have concluded it is terrorism, does not make it so.
Again, as of now (03-26) we have no, none, zero, indications of terrorism (or suicide or similar mal-intent by people occupying the cockpit).
#867
An otherwise perfectly normal jumbo jet in the ocean is "evidence of an aircraft malfunction", at least for me. And the terrorist/suicide theory has gained a lot of fans on this thread, and in the media.
Absent information of that, the focus should be on mechanical problems/crew physiological impairment issues/etc
Absent information of that, the focus should be on mechanical problems/crew physiological impairment issues/etc
#868
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 29
So you use a few examples where structural failure DID NOT cause the loss of the aircraft and then want "conclusive proof" that it would happen?
So if you were to find some examples where structural failure DID cause the loss of the aircraft would you accept that as conclusive?
You seem to like research.
I'll start you off with China Airlines 611 and JAL 123.
EasternATC nails it with respect to your ideas of psychology 101.
Always and never seldom work out. Try and remember that when you write your story.
So if you were to find some examples where structural failure DID cause the loss of the aircraft would you accept that as conclusive?
You seem to like research.
I'll start you off with China Airlines 611 and JAL 123.
EasternATC nails it with respect to your ideas of psychology 101.
Always and never seldom work out. Try and remember that when you write your story.
It is a possibility that the airframe would break up but not an absolute.
We all know with JAL 123 that the real problem there was loss of most of the tail fin and all hydraulics to flying controls.
With CAL 611 that was not just a mere decompression, but a failure to correctly stitch back the belly after a tailstrike concealed under a lap plate. That aircraft did not merely decompress, it unzipped. That is not a relevant example either because that was not an incident where the aircraft continued to fly.
What we are debating here is whether an aircraft that survives the initial decompression event would stay together structurally for another 7+ hours?
It is not 100% certain it would, but it is not 100% certain it would not.
It was you who demanded it was 100% likely to break up and I cited four examples where aircraft which survived horrific structural impairment continued to fly.
At 17:19 Zulu MH370 turned over IGARI from the previous 25 degree track to 40 degrees suggesting it was taking a shortcut to BIBAN bypassing BITOD. Last airspeed given by the transponder was 471 knots at 35,000. The reconstruction of INMARSAT data concluded it continued into the southern Indian Ocean in steady flight "above 30,000ft" and at an average 450kt. That might be a clue that all else being equal it suffered a 20kt decrease in speed.
#869
And it wasn't ME who demanded anything - - - so your reporting continues on an inaccurate path
You were asked in a previous post if you were a professional pilot (or had been). Will you be sharing your experience with us?
#870
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 29
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bgmann
Foreign
25
01-30-2008 11:26 AM