Slashdot Mirror


A Year On, What Flight Simulators Can't Prove About Flight MH370

NBC News, a year after the loss of Malaysian Airlines flight 370, has an interesting piece about various scenarios that would explain the plane's disappearance. From the article: The theory that the pilots turned west because of an emergency is undermined because they did not head back toward Kuala Lumpur, according to retired NTSB senior investigator Greg Feith. ... Feith said that turning off the communications and taking the aircraft to the remote Indian Ocean was a course of action consistent with someone trying to purposefully lose an airliner. "It's 20,000-plus feet deep there," Feith said. "It's going be very difficult to find." He added that "the first thing you're going to do" as a pilot during an emergency is "don the oxygen mask" and "confess to ATC [air traffic control], 'We've got an issue, we need to return.'" Feith, who investigated other so-called "murder-suicide" airline crashes while at the NTSB, said that he has "always postured at least that this was an intentional act by one or both pilots."

13 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Just let go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this still a thing?

    Because the plane hasn't been found.

  2. Re:Just let go. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not terrorism because the purpose of terrorism is to affect political change through fear and violence. There was no video threat or claiming of responsibility, so no political motivation, so no terrorism.

  3. Russia pre-emptively accusing US by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

    With a similar anniversary of flight 17 shot by Russia-sponsored assholes in Eastern Ukraine (by mistake), Russian propaganda is spreading lunatic rumors about America shooting down MH370.

    They don't have to convince anybody with such accusations. They just need to make enough noise to make the perfectly credible accusations against them look similarly lunatic to the short attention-span majority of the world's population...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Russia pre-emptively accusing US by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Thank you very much for providing yet another link to illustrate my point.

      Newsweek is not saying, US did it. The title of the article is "Russian State Media Says [emphasis mine -mi] CIA Shot Down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17".

      And yet, a casual reader would just notice Russia and NATO "trading accusations" — and discount both sides equally...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Wired article wheel fire by minstrelmike · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was an article in Wired quite awhile ago by a pilot. He said if there was a sudden change in direction, it was probably because the -experienced- pilot who was familiar with all the airports in the area, was looking for a safe airport. In that direction was a 7,000 foot runway. He theorized there was a nosewheel fire, the pilot turned and then everyone was overcome by smoke so the plane continued on untl running out of fuel.

    http://www.wired.com/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

    1. Re:Wired article wheel fire by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except there are procedures for clearing a cabin of smoke, even with an ongoing fire.

    2. Re:Wired article wheel fire by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's something I always wondered about with MH370. It used to be that the procedures after smoke in the cabin prioritized trying to locate the source of the smoke and extinguish the fire in-flight. Recently, it's been shifting more towards getting the plane on the ground ASAP (page 33 of PDF).

      Except none of the reporters covering this story seem to be capable of actually researching a story. The obvious question to ask when considering the fire hypothesis is, "what were Malaysia Airlines' in-flight fire procedures?" How did they train their aircrew to react in case of a fire? Did the procedures the crew were supposed to follow still prioritize trying to locate and fight the fire? In which case the Wired article seems implausible. Or were they newer procedures which emphasized landing the plane ASAP? In which case the Wired article might be spot on.

      Still, the biggest flaw in the fire hypothesis IMHO is that the airliner continued to fly for ~7 hours after the "incident". Fires devastating enough to debilitate the crew typically do not go out by themselves. They burn enough equipment to make the aircraft unflyable, or compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft leading to in-flight break-up with passengers and cargo falling out the bottom.

  5. Re:it will never be found by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was it a black smoke plume that changes shape a lot? I'm pretty sure the island is moved by now, likely all are lost.

  6. Re:In related news... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All these 9/11 conspiracy theories follow the same pattern:

    1) I don't know how something happened
    2) ?????
    3) Therefore the government did it and is covering it up

    You're missing a giant piece of logic there on step number 2.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. Pilot priorities during an emergency by Cochonou · · Score: 4, Informative

    He added that "the first thing you're going to do" as a pilot during an emergency is "don the oxygen mask" and "confess to ATC [air traffic control], 'We've got an issue, we need to return.'"

    This is quite a surprising statement. In an emergency, the pilot priorities are:
    1 - Aviate -- Maintain control of the aircraft
    2 - Navigate -- Know where you are and where you intend to go
    3 - Communicate -- Let someone know your plans and needs
    in that precise order, and not in any other order. They are trained to proceed like this.

  8. Re:Just let go. by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The best theory I've heard is the follows (don your aluminum-foil hats!) --

    Suppose you were a terrorism-for-hire organization, or a straight-up terrorist organization that was planning another big strike against a major superpower. Either one works for this theory. And suppose you had some new, amazing high-tech way of taking over a 777 by remote control. What would you do to either (a) test your system, or (b) impress a potential client? Such an ability would be HUGELY valuable, but only if it remained secret. You'd probably select a flight operated by a developing country that would not nominally have been under the same level of scrutiny as one from the first world, and one that could quickly be taken out of normal radar coverage. You'd take the plane over, disable its communication, move it about against the pilot's will (but still within radar range so that the demonstration could be recorded), and then send it off to crash well outside of radar range in a very deep part of the ocean where it might never be found, so evidence of your nefarious actions would not come to public scrutiny.

    You'd be able to demand a pretty high price in the elite international terrorism market with such a demonstration. So while the act of diverting MH 370 might not in itself have been an act of terrorism, it still might have been executed by terrorists.

    It's far fetched, yes, but it fits the facts better than any other theory I've heard. (Suicide by two non-suicidal pilots? Fire that magically disables communication without affecting navigation? Hijack with modern hardened cockpit access? Etc.)

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  9. Re:Just let go. by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until we find wreckage, we have no idea what happened to the plane, nor how to prevent it from happening again.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  10. Re:Just let go. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes likely. So put a dollar value on the safety issues. We have statistically the single safest form of transport. You're far more likely to die on the way to the airport than on the plane itself. How much money should we spend on making it even safer?

    Its the same thought process as anti-terror. Terrorism is a rounding error statistically in the ways that you are likely to die. Yet we spend billions on anti-terror while roads with huge potholes, blind corners, kill people every day and yet their repair remains unfunded.

    We have my own government telling us on a daily basis that times are tough and we need to make tough decisions and that we shouldn't expect healthcare or university to remain cheap, we should expect the pension to be reduced and to live tougher lives, all while writing a blank check to determine what happened to a plane carrying a number of people who were statistically undertaking possibly the safest activity they could to get from a to b.

    Yes this is all statistics. But here's one certainty: When they find MH317 they won't find anything that will make air travel earthshatteringly safer.

    We have long ago reached the point of diminishing returns.