If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Actual pilot has theory about MH370 that is simple, logical, non-hysterical, and consistent with what an actual experienced pilot would do in the event of fire. So naturally the media are all over completely ignoring him in favor of wild speculation   (wired.com) divider line 186
    More: Interesting, electrical fire, landing gear, jet, Google Earth, Kuala Lumpur, eternal flame  
•       •       •

10302 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Mar 2014 at 11:38 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-18 10:28:16 AM
Logical, fits the known data, and doesn't require a conspiracy.
 
2014-03-18 10:55:03 AM
I'm going to go with Courtney Love's theory on this.
 
2014-03-18 10:58:31 AM

dittybopper: Logical, fits the known data, and doesn't require a conspiracy.


Also fits what certain governments have been saying.
 
2014-03-18 11:07:53 AM
Extraterrestrial aliens in cahoots with Malaysian Mafia until proven otherwise.
 
2014-03-18 11:22:20 AM
There are a lot of news stories on this. Should I care about this more than I do?
 
2014-03-18 11:22:20 AM

doglover: dittybopper: Logical, fits the known data, and doesn't require a conspiracy.

Also fits what certain governments have been saying.


Or so the Germans would have us believe....
 
2014-03-18 11:24:48 AM

Mugato: There are a lot of news stories on this. Should I care about this more than I do?


Good question.

It's an interesting mystery.  Generally, large aircraft with hundreds of people on board don't generally go generally missing without some general indication of what happened.  So when it does happen, it's generally news.
 
2014-03-18 11:29:24 AM

dittybopper: Mugato: There are a lot of news stories on this. Should I care about this more than I do?

Good question.

It's an interesting mystery.  Generally, large aircraft with hundreds of people on board don't generally go generally missing without some general indication of what happened.  So when it does happen, it's generally news.


Yeah, but there was a male model on board and it happened in Malaysia.

dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2014-03-18 11:30:10 AM
Why so many cockamamie "conspiracy" theories?

The Lizard People didn't steal the aircraft, but they want you to believe that they did.
 
2014-03-18 11:40:03 AM
Major fire?
"Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, MH370,  I have a fire and I will be setting down at ...."

or minor fire:
"Pan, Pan, Pan MG370. I have an electrical fire and I'm shutting down all electrics and divert to ... if that fails but I am not declaring an emergency at this time."
 
2014-03-18 11:41:42 AM
That's one of the many problem of the media:  logic and common sense don't make good copy/headlines
 
2014-03-18 11:43:05 AM
The only problem is how unlikely it is a fire would kill them all but not be enough to down the plane quick.  But then unlikely things happen.  A 777 disappearing from the face of the Earth is unlikely, regardless of how.
 
2014-03-18 11:44:40 AM

dittybopper: Mugato: There are a lot of news stories on this. Should I care about this more than I do?

Good question.

It's an interesting mystery.  Generally, large aircraft with hundreds of people on board don't generally go generally missing without some general indication of what happened.  So when it does happen, it's generally news.


Yes, that part is news, but presenters interviewing other presenters for their theories, etc., is not.
 
2014-03-18 11:45:02 AM

dittybopper: Mugato: There are a lot of news stories on this. Should I care about this more than I do?

Good question.

It's an interesting mystery.  Generally, large aircraft with hundreds of people on board don't generally go generally missing without some general indication of what happened.  So when it does happen, it's generally news.


How would you describe that without regard to particulars or exceptions?
 
2014-03-18 11:45:53 AM
Though this does jive with the report that people in the Maldives witnessed a low flying plane.  If he continued in a straight line after the initial left turn, that would put the flight path right over them.  Of course that's assuming he was at a high enough altitude to make it there on fuel.
 
2014-03-18 11:46:23 AM

scottydoesntknow: dittybopper: Mugato: There are a lot of news stories on this. Should I care about this more than I do?

Good question.

It's an interesting mystery.  Generally, large aircraft with hundreds of people on board don't generally go generally missing without some general indication of what happened.  So when it does happen, it's generally news.

How would you describe that without regard to particulars or exceptions?


Shiat Happens.
 
2014-03-18 11:48:19 AM
This is too boring of a theory. Not a single spaceman or government agent involved? No wonder it isn't taking off...
 
2014-03-18 11:50:48 AM
This seems pretty reasonable, but what about the map showing the flight path jerking around in the Strait of Malacca before turning again to the Northwest?
 
2014-03-18 11:51:26 AM
I still think anoxia makes more sense.  You could still have the immediate turn to the nearest airport, but if the pilots passed out before they could get down the plane might well keep going.  (See Payne Stewart, Helios 522, etc)  Switching transponders off and the like is easily explainable by anoxia- if you watch anyone going through sudden loss of pressure in a training chamber you see them get completely loopy before passing out.  Someone on the flight deck might well have thought they were doing some completely normal action like defending against the attack of lizard people.
 
2014-03-18 11:52:08 AM

DON.MAC: Major fire?
"Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, MH370,  I have a fire and I will be setting down at ...."

or minor fire:
"Pan, Pan, Pan MG370. I have an electrical fire and I'm shutting down all electrics and divert to ... if that fails but I am not declaring an emergency at this time."


You know how I can tell you DNRTFA?

But hey, you think you know better about cockpit procedures than the actual veteran pilot who wrote the article, so I guess you've got that going for you.
 
2014-03-18 11:53:36 AM

DON.MAC: Major fire?
"Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, MH370,  I have a fire and I will be setting down at ...."

or minor fire:
"Pan, Pan, Pan MG370. I have an electrical fire and I'm shutting down all electrics and divert to ... if that fails but I am not declaring an emergency at this time."


1.  Aviate
2.  Navigate
3.  Communicate

In. That. Order.
 
2014-03-18 11:55:28 AM

cgraves67: This seems pretty reasonable, but what about the map showing the flight path jerking around in the Strait of Malacca before turning again to the Northwest?


low altitude winds pushing the plane around.  It looks erratic, because it is.  It's also my understanding it changed elevation several times too.  No one was in control because they were dead, or the fly by wire controls were damaged.
 
2014-03-18 11:55:29 AM
Wasn't it reported that the flight ascended to 45000 ft? If so, why would a pilot do this in a fire?
 
2014-03-18 11:55:57 AM
I've been proposing this theory for a bit, especially when I heard the ACARS was shut off.  It was nice to hear some validation from someone who's actually a pilot.

But again, we won't know until we find that aircraft.
 
2014-03-18 11:57:27 AM

SauronWasFramed: Wasn't it reported that the flight ascended to 45000 ft? If so, why would a pilot do this in a fire?


RTFA- to deprive the fire of oxygen, and then to dive in an attempt to smother the flames.
 
2014-03-18 11:57:54 AM
cfletch13:
But again, we won't know until we find that aircraft.

If we ever do.  If this is in fact what happened and the report of a low flying jumbo jet over the Maldives is that flight, it's likely under 2 miles of water now.  We had a very good idea where Air France 447 went down, yet it took two years to recover the black box.
 
2014-03-18 11:58:18 AM

SauronWasFramed: Wasn't it reported that the flight ascended to 45000 ft? If so, why would a pilot do this in a fire?


Read the article.
 
2014-03-18 11:59:52 AM

nekom: cfletch13:
But again, we won't know until we find that aircraft.

If we ever do.  If this is in fact what happened and the report of a low flying jumbo jet over the Maldives is that flight, it's likely under 2 miles of water now.  We had a very good idea where Air France 447 went down, yet it took two years to recover the black box.


The wreckage was located less than a week after the crash, if I recall correctly.  But it did take a couple years to find the FDR's.
 
2014-03-18 12:00:09 PM
Engines pinging 7 hours later doesn't jive with Biggles' theory. Unlikely Shah would fark around climbing to 45k feet rather than get the thing back on the ground either.
 
2014-03-18 12:01:53 PM

cfletch13: nekom: cfletch13:
But again, we won't know until we find that aircraft.

If we ever do.  If this is in fact what happened and the report of a low flying jumbo jet over the Maldives is that flight, it's likely under 2 miles of water now.  We had a very good idea where Air France 447 went down, yet it took two years to recover the black box.

The wreckage was located less than a week after the crash, if I recall correctly.  But it did take a couple years to find the FDR's.


Some of the wreckage and bodies were recovered within a week.  Some were never recovered and it was a long shot that even led to the discovery of the black boxes.  The prospect of never finding this aircraft have got to keep Boeing executives up at night no doubt.
 
2014-03-18 12:04:09 PM
I love this thread.
At least three people asking questions and pointing out perceived problems with the theory that are explicitly addressed in the farkin' article.
 
2014-03-18 12:04:35 PM

stellarossa: Unlikely Shah would fark around climbing to 45k feet rather than get the thing back on the ground either.


Which the author doesn't believe happened- he questions the accuracy of the radar data, but he stated that even if we  assume the radar data is accurate, it isn't completely unlikely. Further, he explicitly addresses the engines pinging- the plane had fuel for several hours more flight time. The crew simply succumbed to smoke and the plane flew a straight course into the Indian ocean.
 
2014-03-18 12:05:12 PM
BORING!!
 
2014-03-18 12:05:38 PM

t3knomanser: SauronWasFramed: Wasn't it reported that the flight ascended to 45000 ft? If so, why would a pilot do this in a fire?

RTFA- to deprive the fire of oxygen, and then to dive in an attempt to smother the flames.


Or dive to repressurize. either way.
 
2014-03-18 12:05:54 PM
Paging Mr. Occam; your razor has been located...
 
2014-03-18 12:09:30 PM

t3knomanser: SauronWasFramed: Wasn't it reported that the flight ascended to 45000 ft? If so, why would a pilot do this in a fire?

RTFA- to deprive the fire of oxygen, and then to dive in an attempt to smother the flames.


I'm thinking it might be due to the inaccuracies of primary radar at that distance.  Here are my calculations from a different thread:

At extreme range, the data from primary radar isn't exactly stellar.  If you've got a vertical beam height of just 1 degree, that translates into an "ambiguity" in height of 18,000 feet at 200 statute miles.  So if you measure an altitude of 45,000 feet on a target that's 200 miles away, it's possible that the aircraft could be as low as 27,000 feet.  Or it could be as high as 63,000 feet, or anywhere between those two numbers.  You don't really have any way of knowing.

Without knowing the actual frequency and antenna size of the radar in question, I can't calculate an accurate beamwidth, but a 1 degree beamwidth at 2 GHz would require an antenna somewhere around 8 meters in height, or about 26 feet, which seems reasonable.

As a double check on that, the "radio horizon" in statute miles is 1.414*sqrrt(hgt in feet), so a radar at ground level would be able to see an aircraft flying at that level out to about 232 miles or so.
 
2014-03-18 12:10:41 PM

t3knomanser: stellarossa: Unlikely Shah would fark around climbing to 45k feet rather than get the thing back on the ground either.

Which the author doesn't believe happened- he questions the accuracy of the radar data, but he stated that even if we  assume the radar data is accurate, it isn't completely unlikely. Further, he explicitly addresses the engines pinging- the plane had fuel for several hours more flight time. The crew simply succumbed to smoke and the plane flew a straight course into the Indian ocean.


The only think I'm not 100% about... how could a plane stay in the air that long with an electrical fire?  Swissair didn't last that long in the air, mind you the insulation of the plane ended up being very flammable.  Eight hours of the plane being in the air without an electrical fire effecting the control systems of the flight surfaces?  That's where there's a big hole in the theory... unless my assumption about the effect of an electrical fire is incorrect.
 
2014-03-18 12:12:54 PM
cfletch13:
The only think I'm not 100% about... how could a plane stay in the air that long with an electrical fire?  Swissair didn't last that long in the air, mind you the insulation of the plane ended up being very flammable.  Eight hours of the plane being in the air without an electrical fire effecting the control systems of the flight surfaces?  That's where there's a big hole in the theory... unless my assumption about the effect of an electrical fire is incorrect.

Perhaps they put the fire out.  They have halon on aircraft still, don't they?  Maybe they got the fire put out but were still overcome by the smoke/fumes.  Though you would think their O2 masks would last for a good while.
 
2014-03-18 12:14:55 PM

t3knomanser: stellarossa: Unlikely Shah would fark around climbing to 45k feet rather than get the thing back on the ground either.

Which the author doesn't believe happened- he questions the accuracy of the radar data, but he stated that even if we  assume the radar data is accurate, it isn't completely unlikely. Further, he explicitly addresses the engines pinging- the plane had fuel for several hours more flight time. The crew simply succumbed to smoke and the plane flew a straight course into the Indian ocean.


The author agrees only with the stuff that fits his theory. Anything that doesn't is rejected by him.
 
2014-03-18 12:14:57 PM
maybe that explains the rise in altitude to try to deprive the fire of Oxygen to get the fire out..

then dive down under 20,000 feet to try to get to a point where they could open a door to air out the smoke from the plane..
 
2014-03-18 12:17:01 PM

RaiderFanMikeP: maybe that explains the rise in altitude to try to deprive the fire of Oxygen to get the fire out..

then dive down under 20,000 feet to try to get to a point where they could open a door to air out the smoke from the plane..


www.truth-out.org
 
2014-03-18 12:17:17 PM
Yeah, I thought it was this click bait that's being bandied about all morning. Awful theory. Easily digested by non-pilots.

First of all, poor choice for a nearest airport when Kota Bharu was much closer and can easily accommodate a 777 landing.

A fire consumed the ACARS, transponder, and radio, but progressively while nobody noticed, but it didn't affect the flight/nav computers or Inmarsat equipment? That's one choosy fire.

And a zoom climb to starve the fire? Really? Show me a 777 manual that prescribes that action rather than getting the goddamn airplane on the ground damn fast (and telling people you're going to do it). Not to mention it would kill or maim the passengers by doing so. Awful idea.

Then, despite being on fire (or not, by climbing and killing the passengers), the plane flew on for 6 more hours?

Come on, man.

Explanations like this that get turned in to stories and legends among the lay folk is how religions start.
 
2014-03-18 12:17:56 PM

nekom: DON.MAC: Major fire?
"Mayday, Mayday, Mayday, MH370,  I have a fire and I will be setting down at ...."

or minor fire:
"Pan, Pan, Pan MG370. I have an electrical fire and I'm shutting down all electrics and divert to ... if that fails but I am not declaring an emergency at this time."

1.  Aviate
2.  Navigate
3.  Communicate

In. That. Order.


Maybe time to change procedures a bit - not from the perspective of the crew, but how the equipment operates.  Pop mains to kill electrical fire deploys beacon.  Probably a number of other events should do the same.  Copy of certain data streams should be included on deployed beacon - flash memory is cheap and very survivable, high density, so significant fraction of sensors on board should be represented.  Worst case is it gives "last gasp" indication.  One more thing would have to go wrong for us to be in this situation.  Would be cheap enough solution that false deployments are non-problems - either considered throw away or easy to pick up and use again.
 
2014-03-18 12:18:10 PM
BTW, those calculations for height error would also apply to azimuth, which could also account for an "erratic path", especially if you factor in things like temperature inversions and other atmospheric effects that can wreak havoc on radar systems.

Now, this doesn't mean that long range primary radar systems aren't useful.  Mostly, they are used in a military context, and the inherent errors aren't that critical because whatever weapons system you might send that way (fighter aircraft, missiles) is going to have some independent targeting capability.  You just need to get them in the right neighborhood.

When you start talking about tracking an object at extreme range and trying to draw conclusions about it's behavior based upon that data, though, you end up in trouble because it's just not accurate enough to support it.
 
2014-03-18 12:22:27 PM

nekom: cfletch13:
The only think I'm not 100% about... how could a plane stay in the air that long with an electrical fire?  Swissair didn't last that long in the air, mind you the insulation of the plane ended up being very flammable.  Eight hours of the plane being in the air without an electrical fire effecting the control systems of the flight surfaces?  That's where there's a big hole in the theory... unless my assumption about the effect of an electrical fire is incorrect.

Perhaps they put the fire out.  They have halon on aircraft still, don't they?  Maybe they got the fire put out but were still overcome by the smoke/fumes.  Though you would think their O2 masks would last for a good while.


That's a good point.  Passenger O2 bottles have a short life, but the pilot ones last longer. One pilot probably fought the fire while the other flew the plane.  And there wouldn't be any "Pan Pan Pan" calls if one was piloting while the other was fighting a fire if they have already pulled fuses for the electrical systems.  And there's no ventilation for the smoke, either, so it would just stay in the cabin.  They probably didn't turn any communication systems back on (for fear of starting the fire again) and tried to navigate the aircraft to an airport with minimal (if any) navigation or communication systems.
The pilots would run out of air eventually, and they would succumb to the remaining smoke once in the cabin once their O2 supply ran out.

Interesting.
 
2014-03-18 12:26:22 PM

cfletch13: nekom: cfletch13:
The only think I'm not 100% about... how could a plane stay in the air that long with an electrical fire?  Swissair didn't last that long in the air, mind you the insulation of the plane ended up being very flammable.  Eight hours of the plane being in the air without an electrical fire effecting the control systems of the flight surfaces?  That's where there's a big hole in the theory... unless my assumption about the effect of an electrical fire is incorrect.

Perhaps they put the fire out.  They have halon on aircraft still, don't they?  Maybe they got the fire put out but were still overcome by the smoke/fumes.  Though you would think their O2 masks would last for a good while.

That's a good point.  Passenger O2 bottles have a short life, but the pilot ones last longer. One pilot probably fought the fire while the other flew the plane.  And there wouldn't be any "Pan Pan Pan" calls if one was piloting while the other was fighting a fire if they have already pulled fuses for the electrical systems.  And there's no ventilation for the smoke, either, so it would just stay in the cabin.  They probably didn't turn any communication systems back on (for fear of starting the fire again) and tried to navigate the aircraft to an airport with minimal (if any) navigation or communication systems.
The pilots would run out of air eventually, and they would succumb to the remaining smoke once in the cabin once their O2 supply ran out.

Interesting.


SA111 also descended from 35000 to 5000 greatly increasing the oxygen available as the burn accelerated.
 
2014-03-18 12:26:54 PM
I'm just going to sit this one out and let history run its course.

Remember Flight 19?
 
2014-03-18 12:28:35 PM

dittybopper: t3knomanser: SauronWasFramed: Wasn't it reported that the flight ascended to 45000 ft? If so, why would a pilot do this in a fire?

RTFA- to deprive the fire of oxygen, and then to dive in an attempt to smother the flames.

I'm thinking it might be due to the inaccuracies of primary radar at that distance.  Here are my calculations from a different thread:

At extreme range, the data from primary radar isn't exactly stellar.  If you've got a vertical beam height of just 1 degree, that translates into an "ambiguity" in height of 18,000 feet at 200 statute miles.  So if you measure an altitude of 45,000 feet on a target that's 200 miles away, it's possible that the aircraft could be as low as 27,000 feet.  Or it could be as high as 63,000 feet, or anywhere between those two numbers.  You don't really have any way of knowing.

Without knowing the actual frequency and antenna size of the radar in question, I can't calculate an accurate beamwidth, but a 1 degree beamwidth at 2 GHz would require an antenna somewhere around 8 meters in height, or about 26 feet, which seems reasonable.

As a double check on that, the "radio horizon" in statute miles is 1.414*sqrrt(hgt in feet), so a radar at ground level would be able to see an aircraft flying at that level out to about 232 miles or so.


You sound smart and therefore have no business posting on FARK.

Also - this is article is pretty verbatim for what I heard discussed on both NPR, and The Junkies (a DC sports/shock radio show). CNN is just over the shark on this one!
 
2014-03-18 12:28:36 PM

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: Paging Mr. Occam; your razor has been located...


 A severely fire damaged aircraft doesn't keep flying with course and altitude changes for 6 or 7 hours.
 
2014-03-18 12:29:22 PM
My theory.
Terrorist wanted to seize an airplane for future terrorist event.

1) Take control of the plane.
2) Land in makeshift runway in the jungle or in Pakistan.
3) Passengers try to call for help on cell phone (explains why family members got dropped calls from loved ones)
4) Terrorist shoot the passengers and dump in mass grave.
5) Plane is being refueled/re-fitted with explosives
6) Attack . . .
7) Profit.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report