Fire on board seems to be a very plausible explanation, originating from the front wheel after take off and slowly taking out comms etc unbeknown to the pilots. The original blogger posts a response half way through and worth reading both his posts. East terrace and Prague's earlier links are both relatively informative. (Or if you dont have patience for independent research we can just peddle the same lame 'facts' and counter facts that the Malay government and mass media are happy circulating)
Fire on board seems to be a very plausible explanation, originating from the front wheel after take off and slowly taking out comms etc unbeknown to the pilots. The original blogger posts a response half way through and worth reading both his posts. East terrace and Prague's earlier links are both relatively informative. (Or if you dont have patience for independent research we can just peddle the same lame 'facts' and counter facts that the Malay government and mass media are happy circulating)
This theory was looked at on the BBC website. Their response was:
But Goodfellow's theory has been disputed. If the course was changed during a major emergency, one might expect it to be done using manual control. But the left turn was the result of someone in the cockpit typing "seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer, according to officials", the New York Times reported. The paper says this "has reinforced the belief of investigators - first voiced by Malaysian officials - that the plane was deliberately diverted and that foul play was involved."
Not saying that he's wrong but there are still questions to be answered with any of the theories I've seen.
This obsession with this shows us how we all revel to some extent in misery.
Let me ask you this, and I'd ask you first to realise that most people talk about this instead of talking about other gossipy stuff, the biggest mouthed tart in my office all of a sudden has taken an interest in this instead of how big Kim Kardashian's arse is this week.
So let me ask you... Is it entirely horrible to hope that the plane has been hijacked, rather than crashing, because it will make it even tastier?
I guarantee you a few newspaper editors are hoping for that!
Not sure about revelling in misery... More mystery.
Fire on board seems to be a very plausible explanation, originating from the front wheel after take off and slowly taking out comms etc unbeknown to the pilots. The original blogger posts a response half way through and worth reading both his posts. East terrace and Prague's earlier links are both relatively informative. (Or if you dont have patience for independent research we can just peddle the same lame 'facts' and counter facts that the Malay government and mass media are happy circulating)
This theory was looked at on the BBC website. Their response was:
But Goodfellow's theory has been disputed. If the course was changed during a major emergency, one might expect it to be done using manual control. But the left turn was the result of someone in the cockpit typing "seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer, according to officials", the New York Times reported. The paper says this "has reinforced the belief of investigators - first voiced by Malaysian officials - that the plane was deliberately diverted and that foul play was involved."
Not saying that he's wrong but there are still questions to be answered with any of the theories I've seen.
Goodfellow's argument is that the crew were heading for a particular airfield hence the left turn. Who's to say whether that's done manually or otherwise is significant?
It's also interesting to see how many people post in that blog without reading, and usually without giving a source, so it's not just only on Charlton Life this happens!
What the Goodfellow article does not say is that the plane flew over the Malay peninsula almost exactly between the two nearest "major" airports - Langkawi and Penang (both islands just off the coast by the way). There was also another airport with 747 capability on the east coast that the (smaller) 777 could have landed at (or been aimed at) in an emergency. Then, why did the plane change course once more (from it's initial heading over Malaysia to the 45 degree course now being searched north and south)? Crazy situation...what I wanna know is was there any gold on board!?!?!?!
This obsession with this shows us how we all revel to some extent in misery.
Let me ask you this, and I'd ask you first to realise that most people talk about this instead of talking about other gossipy stuff, the biggest mouthed tart in my office all of a sudden has taken an interest in this instead of how big Kim Kardashian's arse is this week.
So let me ask you... Is it entirely horrible to hope that the plane has been hijacked, rather than crashing, because it will make it even tastier?
I guarantee you a few newspaper editors are hoping for that!
This obsession with this shows us how we all revel to some extent in misery.
Let me ask you this, and I'd ask you first to realise that most people talk about this instead of talking about other gossipy stuff, the biggest mouthed tart in my office all of a sudden has taken an interest in this instead of how big Kim Kardashian's arse is this week.
So let me ask you... Is it entirely horrible to hope that the plane has been hijacked, rather than crashing, because it will make it even tastier?
I guarantee you a few newspaper editors are hoping for that!
Not sure about revelling in misery... More mystery.
What the Goodfellow article does not say is that the plane flew over the Malay peninsula almost exactly between the two nearest "major" airports - Langkawi and Penang (both islands just off the coast by the way). There was also another airport with 747 capability on the east coast that the (smaller) 777 could have landed at (or been aimed at) in an emergency. Then, why did the plane change course once more (from it's initial heading over Malaysia to the 45 degree course now being searched north and south)? Crazy situation...what I wanna know is was there any gold on board!?!?!?!
Goodfellow is quite clear in his reasoning for Langkawi. If it's Kota Bharu (KBR) you refer to in the East he says "That's a 6,000 foot runway and to put that plane down on a 6,000 foot strip at night uncertain of your aircraft's entire systems is not an option." - yesterday's posting on the same site.
Theories abound of course in the absence of evidence, but the reality we can unpick is the way the Malay government and mass media choose to portray the subject. The fire isn't a popular theory because terrorism or 'deliberate acts' of madness are more newsworthy. Human interest, the cheap and easy angle fueled by stories of ringing mobiles.
The cargo manifest yes, suspiciously not revealed to date. The likely role of air force strangely missing too. If it had been shot down, the wreckage could have been cleared up by now, amid the apparent incompetence of the state to make progress.
I feel a bit sorry for the Malaysian authorities - there is, no doubt, stuff they're aware of that they cannot divulge for a whole host of reasons. Until they find the plane (or what's left of it) there's probably very little they can publicly say apart from 'we're still looking'.
This will cause the families huge anguish and not satisfy the curiosity of the world but they are in a no win situation.
"That's a 6,000 foot runway and to put that plane down on a 6,000 foot strip at night uncertain of your aircraft's entire systems is not an option."
But if it was your only option you'd give it a go surely rather than landing in the sea.
Suggest read back over the relevant posts at least before posting.. Radical idea I know but may help explain what Goodfellow was suggesting in full.
There's been rather a lot of posts on Goodfellow's theory. To the extent that a second post has been started for additional comments. One of those comments is:
As an engineer and aviation enthusiast, I note that from the 500 previous odd comments we still stand to understand some critical items as listed below. I hope there is flexibility in the simple fire theory to make amends or allow for further explanations.
1. We need good theories on the Single Point failure and failure mode that was able to somehow breach compartment separation & protection architecture (assuming it started in the landing gear vicinity) allowing smoke and fire to enter the cockpit.
2. What could have been the seat and cause of such a fire to allow heat of "x" temperature and pressure and blinding smoke of certain "density", "flow" , "volume" to incapacitate the pilots and possibly cloud vision to the instruments. Any fire needs the fire triangle components - heat, fuel and an oxidiser and without any the fire won't sustain. (Side note - Let's say the the smoke was so much that it blinded the pilots. Can it be possible that in their trauma they ACCIDENTLY turned off ACARS or the transponder, or might it be possible that in the immediacy of putting the oxygen masks on, the pilots kocked out their headphones into which they speak to ATC?)
4. Chris refers to the landing gear fire in the DC-8 crash (Nigeria Airways) which is a different aircraft very likely possessing different structural and protections system philosophies (we can easily check on this). This crash happened back in 1991,so are we saying that we're equating the designs of the two aircrafts and moreover, neglecting all the body of "learnings" and FAA directives that could have been launched within two decades (20 years) of this incident. To me, it is more than likely that designs and safety philosophies changed within this time period. Correct me here, but shouldn't we have to fixate our analysis to Boeing 777-200ER's in specific?
5. As HP Gunther mentioned in a previous comment, "there are five (5) independent sources of electrical power to VHF-1 (the captain's radio) two engine driven generators, Ram Air Turbine, APU generator (when running) and battery." How is a fire even remotely able to to compromise all backup communication systems making it impossible for pilots to even utter a distress call?
6. Why did the plane continue flying for 6 or 7 hours, responding to pings and sending engine monitoring data to Rolls Royce? These two incidents just don't seem to match the likelihood of an aircraft staying in the air in the event of a serious fire that can take out all electrical communications. Moreoever, as Jbro commented, if the autopilot is a high draw item and can't work on batteries for more than 45 minutes, how is it that it navigated the plane to its eventual destruction while the pilots, and possibly all passengers were knocked out?
7. Zigzagging by the plane, an ascent to 45000 feet and then a correction to a lower altitude to try and extinguish fire? Sorry but there's too much Hollywood written in this. How can a pilot with 18,000 odd hours of experience make a critical decision to fly above the flight ceiling without informing anyone?? Are we assuming he didn't think of 200 people sitting behind him?
It think many will agree that fire may have happened, but it cannot explain all the observations!! I fear the data will speak for itself and point in other directions. Unless the data also is "changed" by someone, meaning we're getting absolute rubbish from the airline investigators.
I'm no expert but these issues do seem to cast some doubt on the theory.
Sorry for my earlier post and my sincerest apologise to anybody that I offended one to many sherbets but that is not an excuse for my actions and any offence that I caused
Sorry for my earlier post and my sincerest apologise to anybody that I offended one to many sherbets but that is not an excuse for my actions and any offence that I caused
I thought it was bang out of order - that wasn't even a Malaysian Airlines plane up there!
Sorry for my earlier post and my sincerest apologise to anybody that I offended one to many sherbets but that is not an excuse for my actions and any offence that I caused
Though I didn't see the post I've already written a letter of complaint to OFCOM about it.
Comments
(Or if you dont have patience for independent research we can just peddle the same lame 'facts' and counter facts that the Malay government and mass media are happy circulating)
But Goodfellow's theory has been disputed. If the course was changed during a major emergency, one might expect it to be done using manual control. But the left turn was the result of someone in the cockpit typing "seven or eight keystrokes into a computer on a knee-high pedestal between the captain and the first officer, according to officials", the New York Times reported. The paper says this "has reinforced the belief of investigators - first voiced by Malaysian officials - that the plane was deliberately diverted and that foul play was involved."
Not saying that he's wrong but there are still questions to be answered with any of the theories I've seen.
Not sure about revelling in misery... More mystery.
It's also interesting to see how many people post in that blog without reading, and usually without giving a source, so it's not just only on Charlton Life this happens!
I also have a morbid fascination with stuff like natural disasters and global events and incidents. I cant quite explain it.
Only if Two_Sheds was on the flight with excess hold baggage. ;-)
Hence the plane is still missing.
Theories abound of course in the absence of evidence, but the reality we can unpick is the way the Malay government and mass media choose to portray the subject. The fire isn't a popular theory because terrorism or 'deliberate acts' of madness are more newsworthy. Human interest, the cheap and easy angle fueled by stories of ringing mobiles.
The cargo manifest yes, suspiciously not revealed to date. The likely role of air force strangely missing too. If it had been shot down, the wreckage could have been cleared up by now, amid the apparent incompetence of the state to make progress.
But if it was your only option you'd give it a go surely rather than landing in the sea.
Although they could be lying i guess. Took them 10 days to give us that earth shattering info.
This will cause the families huge anguish and not satisfy the curiosity of the world but they are in a no win situation.
As an engineer and aviation enthusiast, I note that from the 500 previous odd comments we still stand to understand some critical items as listed below. I hope there is flexibility in the simple fire theory to make amends or allow for further explanations.
1. We need good theories on the Single Point failure and failure mode that was able to somehow breach compartment separation & protection architecture (assuming it started in the landing gear vicinity) allowing smoke and fire to enter the cockpit.
2. What could have been the seat and cause of such a fire to allow heat of "x" temperature and pressure and blinding smoke of certain "density", "flow" , "volume" to incapacitate the pilots and possibly cloud vision to the instruments. Any fire needs the fire triangle components - heat, fuel and an oxidiser and without any the fire won't sustain. (Side note - Let's say the the smoke was so much that it blinded the pilots. Can it be possible that in their trauma they ACCIDENTLY turned off ACARS or the transponder, or might it be possible that in the immediacy of putting the oxygen masks on, the pilots kocked out their headphones into which they speak to ATC?)
4. Chris refers to the landing gear fire in the DC-8 crash (Nigeria Airways) which is a different aircraft very likely possessing different structural and protections system philosophies (we can easily check on this). This crash happened back in 1991,so are we saying that we're equating the designs of the two aircrafts and moreover, neglecting all the body of "learnings" and FAA directives that could have been launched within two decades (20 years) of this incident. To me, it is more than likely that designs and safety philosophies changed within this time period. Correct me here, but shouldn't we have to fixate our analysis to Boeing 777-200ER's in specific?
5. As HP Gunther mentioned in a previous comment, "there are five (5) independent sources of electrical power to VHF-1 (the captain's radio) two engine driven generators, Ram Air Turbine, APU generator (when running) and battery." How is a fire even remotely able to to compromise all backup communication systems making it impossible for pilots to even utter a distress call?
6. Why did the plane continue flying for 6 or 7 hours, responding to pings and sending engine monitoring data to Rolls Royce? These two incidents just don't seem to match the likelihood of an aircraft staying in the air in the event of a serious fire that can take out all electrical communications.
Moreoever, as Jbro commented, if the autopilot is a high draw item and can't work on batteries for more than 45 minutes, how is it that it navigated the plane to its eventual destruction while the pilots, and possibly all passengers were knocked out?
7. Zigzagging by the plane, an ascent to 45000 feet and then a correction to a lower altitude to try and extinguish fire? Sorry but there's too much Hollywood written in this. How can a pilot with 18,000 odd hours of experience make a critical decision to fly above the flight ceiling without informing anyone?? Are we assuming he didn't think of 200 people sitting behind him?
It think many will agree that fire may have happened, but it cannot explain all the observations!! I fear the data will speak for itself and point in other directions. Unless the data also is "changed" by someone, meaning we're getting absolute rubbish from the airline investigators.
I'm no expert but these issues do seem to cast some doubt on the theory.