I am not sure if they mention it is that article, but I had heard there was a case of a cockpit fire on the same model of plane previously. It was on the ground at the time, but it was related to the oxygen system, so it progressed VERY quickly and destroyed the cockpit.
In reply to aircooled: The moon was first quarter on March 8th. It would provide some light at that time of night.
As a pilot, I like the fire theory. I always try to know where the nearest good weather and suitable airport is.
93EXCivic wrote: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/ This seems to make the most sense to me.
I think that is it. Most plausible for sure.
From a pilot on another forum I frequent, the "fire theory" is basically not plausible (if you believe his input).
mulletman said: "I'll be the first to call BS on that fire theory. For that story to work, the following have to be true:
That article states that "Yes, the pilots have oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." Bull. E36 M3. Want to know what the FIRST action item is at my airline when smoke is detected? The person who identifies the smoke will state: "SMOKE. DON MASK." Then the Ox mask donning procedure is to be completed before anything else is done. No checklist will ever direct you to completely power down the airplane while in-flight. If that is done, you lose all fire caution and warning advisory systems, which is exactly what you don't want happening.
If you want a good example of how fires progress in airplanes, take a look at SwissAir 111. Airplanes are complex, and do not suffer fires well. People, if they're provided with oxygen to breathe, will handle fires actually quite well. The SwissAir crew was still trying to fly the airplane even as their plastic checklist was melting into a solid chunk. In case you don't want to look it up, here are some of the facts about 111:
The rule of thumb with fire in an airplane is simple: GET DOWN. Had the Malaysian crew been on fire, and made a turn toward an airport, they also would have started a pretty severe descent. If fire was the cause, your search radius would be small enough that all you'd need would be a boat and a pair of binoculars. "
nocones wrote: Serious question. Why is it socially acceptable to flat out make jokes about this before we even know the fate of the 239 people on board? I've heard jokes about this everywhere. I can't think of another situation involving such loss of life (probably) where this was OK ever let alone so quickly. You don't see a lot of jokes about school shootings, TWA flight 800, 9/11 etc. But this is fair game. Seriously what gives? (Not trying to be a dick honestly wondering)
I will second that emotion. It's fine to discuss, but please be respectful.
I like the fire theory. A lot.
Unfortunately, it doesn't explain the deletion of data on the pilot's flight simulator, nor the (apparent) fact that his family moved out of their home the day before the disappearance.
I didn't catch up on my news yesterday. Now why the berkeley is a search just to the West of Perth?
SVreX wrote: I like the fire theory. A lot. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain the deletion of data on the pilot's flight simulator, nor the (apparent) fact that his family moved out of their home the day before the disappearance.
Did you read what I posted from a commercial airline pilot?
NOHOME wrote:nocones wrote: Serious question. Why is it socially acceptable to flat out make jokes about this before we even know the fate of the 239 people on board? I've heard jokes about this everywhere. I can't think of another situation involving such loss of life (probably) where this was OK ever let alone so quickly. You don't see a lot of jokes about school shootings, TWA flight 800, 9/11 etc. But this is fair game. Seriously what gives? (Not trying to be a dick honestly wondering)Because we are human beings. People react in all kinds of ways when dealing with tragedy and fear. There are no rules. There are people who think they should make the rules, but really, there are none. Seriously.
Bingo. Some people need to grow some skin thicker than a wet piece of tissue paper.
It is easier to make jokes about a situation like this for a few reasons. There is no tragic wreckage video we can be shown repeatedly, the families haven't been paraded out to cry on tv, and it happened on the other side of the world.
I've always turned to jokes in times of tragedy. maybe that's what happens when you grow up in a house of jokesters and you were the one to discover your only grandfather dead at the age of 56 in his bed when you were 9 years old. I dunno... I try to go the light-hearted route rather than the sad, depressing OMG IT'S JUST TERRIBLE method.
But hey, obviously my method doesn't work, so why dont some of you tell me how to handle grief and tragedy.
I also make a joke out of everything but I am a terrible person do I wouldn't follow my example.
z31maniac wrote:SVreX wrote: I like the fire theory. A lot. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain the deletion of data on the pilot's flight simulator, nor the (apparent) fact that his family moved out of their home the day before the disappearance.Did you read what I posted from a commercial airline pilot?
Yes I did.
The fire theory was also written by a commercial pilot.
His read better.
There's more new information out today stating that the initial turn was not as sharp as first thought. It was more like a 30-45 degree turn to a NNW heading into China rather than a 315-330 turn to the SW towards the Indian Ocean. So if you believe that, it disproves the theory in Wired that suggested the flight crew was faced with a cockpit fire and had lined up with a little known 12,000 ft. runway to make an emergency landing ... but didn't make it. I thought I had a good theory last Friday based on research and information at the time. But the changing misinformation, disinformation, and withheld information makes any kind of plausible hypothesis impossible from one day to the next. The local clowns running the investigation are doing a p-poor job. Their press conferences are a farce, like something you'd see on SNL.
First it was over 90 degrees, then it hadn't turned, then it was 45 degrees, then it was 170 degrees now it is 30 degrees... They are just making E36 M3 up.
I have a feeling this plane is sitting at some obscure airfield somewhere, like Pakistan.
Was watching the news at lunch, I see that the media's latest chew toy is that the pilot "deleted data from his flight simulator." Well that's a common everyday action for a flight sim enthusiast. Install addon, find that it doesn't work/is crap/broke the sim, delete data from simulator LIKE A TERRORIST!
If something happens to me I'd hate to have investigators think I was a terrorist because I had to delete a couple Miley Cyrus songs.
In reply to Wally:
Just unamerican......durka
spitfirebill wrote: I have a feeling this plane is sitting at some obscure airfield somewhere, like Pakistan.
Dumb question, but what about some kind of forgotten/abandoned WWII airstrip?
Highly unlikely I would say. Anything in the islands / jungles will be totally overgrown and very likely way to small and narrow.
Pretty much anywhere else you have to deal with / get past the air defense detection (e.g. Australia, India, Pakistan, China), which will be pretty much impossible in a plane that large with that big of a radar return (those engines are effectively massive radar reflectors)
Would any WW2 airstrip be long enough for a modern airliner? They were made for much smaller and mostly slower planes.
But then they'd have to hide the plane from spy satellites.
A B-17 or B-24 is pretty big, but still way smaller and way slower a landing speed then a 777, and much better in a rough field.
This will give you an idea:
And I am pretty sure the B52 looks pretty small next to a 777 (162 ft long vs 209 ft).
Yeah a quick search indicated even still in use/major airstrips (at least American) only 50% would have been long enough by 1955.
I think a 777 needs something like 7000ft for take-off if fully loaded.
You'll need to log in to post.
