I was watching and reading things when I got home last night about the developments over the course of the day Saturday I could only slightly glean from my phone, where watching videos especially would not have been practical. It *is* interesting some of this information that has come out. The transponder, for example, can be turned off quickly and easily like any ordinary radio (which the transponder essentially is) but the avionics computer (the ACARS system) that communicates with satellites and other people on the ground requires someone to go into the avionics bay of the plane and manually do something to the circuitry. (Probably pull a fuse or flip a breaker or something.) And this would obviously take a high degree of knowledge to do. There's reports on the way the plane was navigating as it more-or-less stayed on some form of RADAR as an unidentified blip suggesting the plane was being controlled by a complicated-to-operate navigation system on the plane. A system that requires expert training to program. Then there's the "ping" on that long arc they're now searching along (part of which goes over heavily controlled airspace) which is a mystery unto itself. The northern part of the arc takes it over tightly controlled airspace over Asian and Middle-Eastern countries. The southern part, largely, takes it over open water in the Indian Ocean. Which begs the question "Why?" It seems right now they are reporting the attention being focused on the southern arc given how controlled and monitored the norther part is. But it begs the question on why someone would go to all of this trouble, knowledge, and experience to go rogue with an aircraft, go to lengths to evade or stay off RADAR just to ditch it in the ocean? Something that could have simply been done right away without all of these theatrics. Also I've never heard anything about Vietnamese end of radio communications. Usually when a plane leaves one airspace and enters another there's a hand-off between the plane and radio controllers. There's also a hand-off on some-level on the ground if anything as simple as "Hey this guy is yours now!" There's been no information on if the pilot ever checked in with Vietnamese ATC and if he didn't why Vietnamese ATC never questioned why a plane that left the adjacent airspace bound for theirs but never checked in. This whole situation is just very, very interesting and it's hard to just not wonder what the end game with the persons involved was. I also kind of wonder why there was so much fuel in the plane. Something I've not seen addressed yet. Usually a plane flies with as much fuel as it needs plus extra for emergencies. It seems this plane was fueled way, way beyond that considering it's being speculated to have been able to fly for as much as 7 or 8 hours beyond the point it lost radio contact, well, well beyond as much as it needed to get where it was going. That seems like a lot of fuel to me to put on a plane for this trip plus the additional needed for emergencies. But I've not seen this addressed too much so I'm guessing the plane had the amount of fuel it was felt it needed to safely make the trip and to be able to reroute or circle in an emergency. This whole case is very interesting and, nerd that I am who's wanted to be a pilot for as long as he can remember, I find the avionics and plane technology aspect of it fascinating. Still though, I really hope that among those who were on the plane are alive, or there are at least *some* survivors. If the plane has crashed I do hope they're able to at least retrieve the "black boxes" to help maybe solve some mysteries here. Also be interesting to see what other pieces of information are available and investigators have and just haven't divulged yet. This whole thing is sad, spooky, fascinating and just interesting. I hope the best for the passengers and crew on the plane but it doesn't seem like we're heading toward a good outcome here.
The flight time from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing is about 6 hours, so they did not have really that much extra fuel on board.
Don't they always take off with a full load of fuel? Y'know, just in case they get diverted or have to circle around or something.
Not a full load, no - just, as I believe Trekker4747 mentioned, enough for the trip plus a margin for emergencies. You have to remember that the extra weight of additional fuel actually decreases the fuel efficiency and increases the cost of the flight - no airline wants to pay for more than they have to, and some would probably let you run out of fuel as you're slowing to a stop on the destination runway if they could calculate it that finely and there weren't regulations prohibiting it.
Yeah, the pilots always want more fuel, but fuel is more expensive (and if you carry more, you burn more because of the weight). I think the standard compromise is double the amount, but I'm not sure how universally followed that is since we're not talking about an American air company here.
Those figures assume the plane maintains a steady cruising altitude around 35 kilofeet. This plane wasn't doing that, so that changes its rate of fuel consumption.
Yeah, planes carry as much as they need plus some more for an emergency. I could probably check what the rule is on figuring that out (probably as much as you need plus half that again.) Remember when it comes to planes fuel is loaded in terms of not gallons but pounds. Tens of thousands of pounds. A scale where weight of the fuel is a factor, more fuel, more weight, more fuel you need to carry that weight. More weight in fuel less cargo/passengers you can carry, heavier the plane is harder it is to control and more runway you need to take-off/land. The plane isn't going to carry any more fuel than it absolutely has to.
I thought it went "silent" and dropped off radar within an hour of takeoff, then the satellite pings were seven hours after that, which was said to be near the limits of its fuel. Eight-ish hours of fuel doesn't seem unreasonable for a six hour flight, depending on what alternate airport(s) they planned for plus a standard 30-minutes-at-cruise "cushion."
The world is a big place. Nothing to say it landed at an island. Some of the reports I heard said that the path was such that it could avoid radar. Now the reports are that the plane did some rather dramatic changes in altitude, which **may** point to a struggle in a cockpit. More on the violent maneuvers in a bit-- Now I will say this. If I wanted to incapacitate the passengers, I might try to find a way to decompress everything so I and a terrorist co-pilot remain conscious. This might explain why no cell phone calls went out. In terms of an accident, there is this: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140214162158AABlaT8 The scenario takes at worst 5 minutes - The loss of pressurization is immediate if explosive decompression - Means that the cabin gets foggy immediately (like when you open a Coca Cola bottle - The oxygen masks drop for passengers, most are surprised and do not know what to do At 40,000 feet, time of useful consciousness is about 15-20 seconds - then bye-bye - While all that happens, the pilots initiate an emergency descent - Slightly "aerobatic" to the good taste of passengers...! - 1. They first don their oxygen mask - 2. Then bank the airplane some 45ยบ to reduce negative G and avoid any traffic below - 3. They put the nose down for a very steep descent - 4. Maybe they elect to extend the gear (noise) and spoilers (buffet) shaking airplane - Passengers if still conscious think a crash is... imminent...! The descent itself takes about 3 or 4 minutes, to about 14,000 feet - They will descend that low, unless flying in the Himalayas, or across the Andes - Pilots practice an emergency descent every 6 months in a simulator - Source: Retired airline 747 pilot and instructor - It looks like decompression now... http://www.newindianexpress.com/wor...ft/2014/03/12/article2104356.ece#.UyYDGxgo7cs US transport officials warned four months ago of a weak spot in Boeing 777s that could lead to rapid decompression and even to the aircraft breaking up in mid-air. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/faa-warned-about-777-body-crack-problems-2014-03-12 Rather like the situation in the miniseries The Langoliers where a plane is sailing along at the last, and no one aboard is awake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Langoliers_(TV_miniseries) Although this is probably a bit more apt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airframe_(novel) The incident seems inexplicable. The N-22 is a plane with an excellent safety record and the pilot is highly trained, making the possibility of human error unlikely...the most likely explanation turns out to be a technical problem that was thought to have been fixed years before... __________________________________________________________________________ So here is the working scenario: Boeing has some problems with cracking. Some patchwork is done, but doesn't hold. You have decompression which incapacitates the passengers preventing calls out. The crew descends, and tries to make a turn back, and anoxia gets to them. The plane sails on, the people aboard mercifully asleep, out of radar range to...wherever. __________________________________________________________________________ That's why we need more space based systems like this I should think: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbr.htm http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa7cb6aee-1c4e-406a-a022-7b7fb65dee07
So, the plan was to hijack an advanced, newer-model aircraft from a major airline, making it the most wanted plane in the world. Then divert it to some airport sophisticated enough to service, maintain and even re-paint a 200-feet long, 60-feet high 777 -- in complete secrecy. Then count on everyone's air traffic control and air defenses just forgetting about the missing airliner that could be used as a 200-ton weapon, and somehow trick them into thinking it's some scheduled flight. That about right? Miniseries, hell, it's really happened a number of times, most notably to Payne Stewart.
I know it reads like something out of THUNDERBALL, but if it was a terror plot, that would be the only explanation for why no one has taken credit. Maybe the pilot just nosed it in--but he could have done that at the very first. Most likely it was an accident and decompression, and I had a working scenario I just updated my post above. That would explain no calls getting out. So it probably was an accident after all.
I apologize for once again posting something that sounds like something out of an escapist Hollywood movie. If we had a working theory that resembled normal reality, I'd go with it, but for now we don't. With that out of the way... If we don't believe that theft of the aircraft is plausible, it seems to me a logical alternative is that the target was not the aircraft itself, but someone or something on the aircraft. Every flight I take I'm told about the seat cushions that can be used as floatation devices in the event of a water landing. So I assume the aircraft could make a water landing, be met by a boat, and remain afloat long enough to unload people or cargo before being scuttled. Right?
Decompression is unlikely. Not only hard to do in an airliner but the movements of the plane suggest intentional action and not emergency action. If it was stolen for future terrorist action it's a poorly thought out plan since a) a missing airliner doesn't go unnoticed, b) many airports struggle to accommodate this plane, and c) any "unknown" plane trying something anywhere is going to draw attention in populated areas controlled by RADAR and other systems. Not to say it can't happen or what happened just that it'd be a dumb plan. Pilot suicide or action to take down the plane is unlikely because then why these theatrics of evading RADAR and such? Why not just simply crash? The plane having mechanical failure seems unlikely given radio/computer transmissions don't suggest that. It's just a plane mystery and it seems there's a lot of maybes out there and a lot of reasons for AND against those maybes.
I'm not saying it was a smart plan--but hey, we see dumb criminals who think they are just brilliant. I'm hoping it was diverted and the passengers are still alive--but I doubt it.
No, not really. Or at the very most, only in VERY specific and calm conditions, on purpose, under control by the pilot, and like right after takeoff or aborted landing (like the one in the East River of NYC a couple years ago). They mostly tell you that crap so you feel better about the whole experience. Unless it's right at the beginning or end of the flight (like aborted takeoff or skidding off the end of the runway), that cushion is doing nothing for you. Life vest may make it nominally easier for the recovery team to find the bodies, though...
^ I'm assuming that the water landing is part of the plan all along, not an emergency measure. And any excess fuel weight can be dumped. So it's right at the end of the flight, but not at the end of a solid landing area. Assuming good weather and a fully functional plane, can the pilot make a water landing to offload people and cargo to a boat?
It don't think a water landing of a large plane has ever been attempted unless an emergency situation has existed. Nor do I think that there has ever been an emergency landing at sea that hasn't ended with death of at least some of the passengers. The only two attempted emergency landings at sea I can think of are Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (which had been hijacked - 125 of the 175 people on board died) and Tuninter Flight 115 (16 of the 39 people on board died). Maybe other people know of other cases.