Haven't seen any topics on the missing 777. More and more evidence seems to be leaking about it being a hijacking rather than an ocean crash. Most interesting development/theory I've seen today was the hijacker/pilot shadowing another 777 commuter to mask its presence on radar.
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/20m5oc/comprehensive_timeline_malaysia_airlines_flight/cg4tfgj
There has been alot of worthless reporting from major news sources, the most interesting info I've gotten has been from the Reddit thread and from The Guardian.
I know there are some flight-affiliated people here, keefe among others, does that sort of theory make sense? Basically by turning off their transponders, the aircraft being tailed wouldn't exactly be aware of their presence, and by flying higher, MH370 could have avoided jet wash.
And given Uygher militants in China attempting to hijack planes in the past, I can't imagine China is feeling too pleasant right now. Then again, I think there is far more information known at the moment that isn't being disseminated for a variety of reasons.
Did I hear correctly that it's rumored the pilot took it up to 45,000 feet and dropped in below 20,000 feet to kill the passengers and crew via hypoxia?
Crash/keefe?
Quote from: PTM on March 17, 2014, 05:20:42 PM
Did I hear correctly that it's rumored the pilot took it up to 45,000 feet and dropped in below 20,000 feet to kill the passengers and crew via hypoxia?
Crash/keefe?
From what I read that was speculated to knock them out rather than straight up kill them. Again, all speculation.
Quote from: JWags85 on March 17, 2014, 05:27:25 PM
From what I read that was speculated to knock them out rather than straight up kill them. Again, all speculation.
Could be some crazy stuff still to come.
My worry is if this a terror-linked, what stage 2 of the plan is.
I have been hunkered down testing a new alternative fuel technology for the past couple weeks so my situational awareness of world events is low. Having said which, three of my colleagues on this project are 20 year engineers at either Boeing and GE Power. In fact, one worked on the 777 wing and another on ACARS. And we all agree the coverage of this event is instructive not in what is being said but, rather, in what is not being said. And what is not being said clearly suggests this was not likely not mechanical or electronic failure.
The reality is that aircraft are engineered with redundancy - and more so with commercial than military. The shutdown/failure of so many automated and manual comms systems is statistically improbable. And given the lack of incident reporting, the comms failure had to have been observed/noted by KL Center and not Saigon Center. I have flown those airways many times in front and in back and if Saigon Center picked up the flight it would have reported a loss of positive radar control immediately.
The link you provided suggests MH 370 joined on an SQ flight to blend in with the radar clutter but I can assure you that the SQ Captain would have seen this and bitched about it. Loudly. All aircraft have an electronic IFF safety system for ATC tracking, mid-air collision avoidance, and instrumentation mensuration. Aircraft squawk signals in Modes 1-4. We know on this night it was CAVU to the moon so, in addition to being under positive radar control and flying VFR the Mode 3A/C or Mode 4 squawks would have warned the SQ crew of MH 370's presence. Furthermore, if an aircraft deselects IFF ATC will see that immediately and start asking questions. Loudly.
We know that the last civilian radar contact was KL Center. But if the aircraft altered course to WNW then RMAF Butterworth near Penang would have picked up the flight. And this military field would have had the last radar contact if the flight had headed out over the IO/Andaman Sea. The fact that no other ATC picked up the flight is suspect - that is a big chunk of steel to go unnoticed on a scope at Chennai which would have been the next major ATC on that flight path.
So again, what has been disclosed only says the aircraft altered course and headed west. The last radar contact was by RMAF Butterworth. If there were voice comms the transcripts have not been released. If there were not voice comms then Malaysia's lack of response is curious. The devil is in the details on this one and Malaysia is being very circumspect to the point where we are convinced they know a lot more than they are telling.
Another take on search using Probability. Interesting read.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-statisticians-could-help-find-flight-370/
Quote from: brandx on March 17, 2014, 06:00:09 PM
Another take on the search using Probability. Interesting read.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-statisticians-could-help-find-flight-370/
Quote from: PTM on March 17, 2014, 05:20:42 PM
Did I hear correctly that it's rumored the pilot took it up to 45,000 feet and dropped in below 20,000 feet to kill the passengers and crew via hypoxia?
Crash/keefe?
The erratic maneuvering would be more a result of hypoxia than an attempt to induce it. Hypoxia is what happens when your brain is starved for oxygen. It leads to a drunken stupor where one is conscious but unable to think clearly. Military pilots do an annual hypoxia drill where we go into a pressure chamber and they take us from 8k' to 30k' feet. As we are changing altidues we are on O2 and performing simple tasks - patty cake, arranging cards by suit (as seen in the movie Officer and a Gentleman.) We are directed to remove our O2 masks and within seconds we are incoherent. The medical staff observing put our masks back on and we are cured immediately. The whole point is to illustrate how quickly one succumbs to hypoxia, how stupid you behave, but how quickly going back on O2 fixes it. An important point: The EPs for loss of cabin pressure require the pilot to descend below 10k' which eliminates the need for sup ox.
Given that a rapid loss of cabin pressure would have been triggered alarms and deployment of sup ox I find it unlikely that is what happened. There was an FAA warning issued recently for the 777 about rapid decompression and ensuing loss of airframe integrity which could explain a possible mishap where rapid decompression incapacitated the crew and the aircraft continued to fly well out over the IO before the suggested airframe failure occurred. The lack of radar coverage in the IO would account for the lack of locating data.
If the aircraft climbed to 45k', for whatever reason, the atmosphere would have stalled out the power plants and the aircraft could have entered a dive but anti-spin and stability control systems would have leveled the aircraft out at some point. Unless there had been some other catastrophic failure that had shorted out those systems.
But I question that the climb was executed to incapacitate passengers through hypoxia. The most serious issue is why there was a complete comms failure across multiple systems. The fact that the IFF system was turned off is the most troubling action which points to piracy more than a mechanical or electronic failure that would have registered other signatures.
Colonel, so this is the question I have around all this. Why is it even possible for a crew to be able to turn off their transponder? In what instance would it ever be ok not to be squawking back to the tower? I guess I don't understand why pilots would need to turn it off on a commercial aircraft. I get it for military purposes.
????
On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level. If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.
Really good stuff, Keefe. Thank you, please keep updating with your insight.
Is it a coincidence that the two Seals died aboard the Alabama outside Seychelles a few weeks before this?
The radar at Diego Garcia had to have picked up something.
For what it's worth, for an outside the USA perspective, my mother-in-law filled me whnat they've been saying on Polish TV. Something about a gold transport on the flight and the plane was taken to steal the gold.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2014, 07:27:10 PM
Colonel, so this is the question I have around all this. Why is it even possible for a crew to be able to turn off their transponder? In what instance would it ever be ok not to be squawking back to the tower? I guess I don't understand why pilots would need to turn it off on a commercial aircraft. I get it for military purposes.
????
On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level. If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.
I guess I can't speak to all commercial aircraft but I know US based airliners can be taken into auxiliary military service in times of war, which would require IFF to be turned off.
There is a finite supply but you would have to be at altitude for a significant amount of time to exhaust the supply(at least 15 minutes that I'm aware of). Air crew have an independent supplemental oxygen supply. But to Keefe's point to get to an altitude where you can "kill" off the crew the airframe would stop flying for a while. Additionally, you'd have to have a method for safely depressurizing the aircraft without impacting the integrity of the airframe.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on March 17, 2014, 07:54:46 PM
For what it's worth, for an outside the USA perspective, my mother-in-law filled me whnat they've been saying on Polish TV. Something about a gold transport on the flight and the plane was taken to steal the gold.
They are definitely looking into the cargo aspect of the plane, don't know about the gold though.
More important is the passenger manifest and who was on the aircraft, specifically if there was a target passenger/s onboard. If you recall (I attached the WIKI article to read), the Egyptian flight had over 30 high ranking Military Officers onboard. NTSB/FBI investigation determined it was a deliberate act by the flight officer to crash the aircraft. Reason is debated, but the probable reason was to kill the Officers onboard. Egyptian Authorities didn't agree and stated it was a mechanical failure. Let the conspiracy theories run rampant on this new flight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
For the record, completely discount any flying below the radar nonsense. The type of precision required to execute a low level penetration even over the wide open ocean is very complex and requires specialized equipment to execute successfully. Folks asleep at the switch may have missed the radar returns but by no means was a 777 doing 300 knots at 100 AGL
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2014, 07:27:10 PM
Colonel, so this is the question I have around all this. Why is it even possible for a crew to be able to turn off their transponder? In what instance would it ever be ok not to be squawking back to the tower? I guess I don't understand why pilots would need to turn it off on a commercial aircraft. I get it for military purposes.
????
On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level. If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.
IFF systems are hard wired into all aircraft avionics. All boxes can squawk Modes 1-4 (military has one more, Mode 5) but Modes 1,2, and 4 require NSA crypto gear that encode the signals. Commercial and military both Squawk Mode 3A and Mode 3C. Military pilots can deselect IFF for cloaking under EMCON conditions. Civilian aircraft cannot directly disengage IFF but it can be done through the fuse box.
But as I say, deselecting IFF or disabling it through the fuse box triggers all sorts of alarms in the flight station as well as at ATC. Let's say a UA 777 pops a breaker while flying from ORD to SFO. If DEN Center is controlling that flight it will immediately interrogate a number of systems, including the flight deck personnel. If it doesn't get a positive response it escalates to NORAD - west of the MS is WADS at McChord AFB. WADS will likely scramble some F 16s from somewhere to run an intercept.
What we do not know is what did KL ATC do once the Mode 3A/3C Squawk went NORDO? I guarantee you that the Malaysian government already knows more than they are letting on. And there might be a very good intel reason for not disclosing what they know.
The reason I discount hypoxia is simply going to 45k' doesn't cause hypoxia in a pressurized aircraft; someone needs to decompress the cabin from 8k' to 45k' in order to knock out the passengers. One of my colleagues knows the environmental control systems on the 777 and he says Boeing has engineered multiple sensors into the 777 system that triggers a release of the O2 masks. So it is virtually impossible to systemically prevent deployment of O2 systems. The only limitation is the amount of O2 which is usually about 15 minutes to allow the crew to get the bird below 10k'.
Wouldn't U.S. Satellite pick this action up?
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 17, 2014, 08:56:50 PM
Wouldn't U.S. Satellite pick this action up?
Diego Garcia absolutely should have picked this up. There's no way that base didn't.
Quote from: keefe on March 17, 2014, 08:35:44 PM
IFF systems are hard wired into all aircraft avionics. All boxes can squawk Modes 1-4 (military has one more, Mode 5) but Modes 1,2, and 4 require NSA crypto gear that encode the signals. Commercial and military both Squawk Mode 3A and Mode 3C. Military pilots can deselect IFF for cloaking under EMCON conditions. Civilian aircraft cannot directly disengage IFF but it can be done through the fuse box.
But as I say, deselecting IFF or disabling it through the fuse box triggers all sorts of alarms in the flight station as well as at ATC. Let's say a UA 777 pops a breaker while flying from ORD to SFO. If DEN Center is controlling that flight it will immediately interrogate a number of systems, including the flight deck personnel. If it doesn't get a positive response it escalates to NORAD - west of the MS is WADS at McChord AFB. WADS will likely scramble some F 16s from somewhere to run an intercept.
What we do not know is what did KL ATC do once the Mode 3A/3C Squawk went NORDO? I guarantee you that the Malaysian government already knows more than they are letting on. And there might be a very good intel reason for not disclosing what they know.
The reason I discount hypoxia is simply going to 45k' doesn't cause hypoxia in a pressurized aircraft; someone needs to decompress the cabin from 8k' to 45k' in order to knock out the passengers. One of my colleagues knows the environmental control systems on the 777 and he says Boeing has engineered multiple sensors into the 777 system that triggers a release of the O2 masks. So it is virtually impossible to systemically prevent deployment of O2 systems. The only limitation is the amount of O2 which is usually about 15 minutes to allow the crew to get the bird below 10k'.
If you had to put money on what you think happened what would be your bet?
Quote from: MUDish on March 17, 2014, 08:58:21 PM
Diego Garcia absolutely should have picked this up. There's no way that base didn't.
Diego Garcia to Penang is more than 2000 nm. Unless there was anomalous propagation refracting the electromagnetic pulses the range of the air search radars at BIOT would reach nowhere near MH 370's projected flight path.
Let me give you some perspective - an E3A Sentry AWACS operating above 24k' has an effective range of less than 250 nm. An air search radar at sea level has significantly less range; BIOT sits at sea level right on the equator with minimal temperature inversion. Diego Garcia never got a whiff of this aircraft.
Quote from: melissasmooth on March 17, 2014, 09:05:50 PM
If you had to put money on what you think happened what would be your bet?
Not copping out but we don't have enough info. But the lack of a fire ball, oil slick, or flotsam seems to say some bad guys got control and commandeered this asset. It went somewhere and the lack of reporting suggests there were people on the ground But again, there is still way too much that even a guy with 8,000 hours cannot deconflict the story with reasonable confidence.
That's assuming the plane went down right away and didn't continue westward. Find it hard to believe some one at Diego Garcia wasn't aware once that plane lost contact and turned west.
The US has been way too quiet on this.
Quote from: MUDish on March 17, 2014, 09:40:54 PM
That's assuming the plane went down right away and didn't continue westward. Find it hard to believe some one at Diego Garcia wasn't aware once that plane lost contact and turned west.
The US has been way too quiet on this.
Diego Garcia couldn't have seen a 777 unless it was within at least 300NM with the radar at full power, unlikely at that point. Easily could have slipped by south of Sri Lanka. There are a lot of things that don't add up, but I wouldn't ascribe conspiracy to the US government just yet.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 17, 2014, 10:00:02 PM
Diego Garcia couldn't have seen a 777 unless it was within at least 300NM with the radar at full power, unlikely at that point. Easily could have slipped by south of Sri Lanka. There are a lot of things that don't add up, but I wouldn't ascribe conspiracy to the US government just yet.
I understand the physical radar distance, but once that plane went AWOL and headed westward, some alarm should have gone off.
Still having trouble believing two ex Seals died of heart attacks on the Alabama a couple weeks before this is not a coincidence.
I'M LEANING TOWARD THE ALIEN ABDUCTION ANGLE
Quote from: elephantraker on March 17, 2014, 10:38:51 PM
I'M LEANING TOWARD THE ALIEN ABDUCTION ANGLE
the Bombay Triangle??
Quote from: MUDish on March 17, 2014, 10:08:57 PM
I understand the physical radar distance, but once that plane went AWOL and headed westward, some alarm should have gone off.
Still having trouble believing two ex Seals died of heart attacks on the Alabama a couple weeks before this is not a coincidence.
What would be the connection here?
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 17, 2014, 10:47:55 PM
What would be the connection here?
Had to look it up myself. The claim goes that...
QuoteFlight 370 received a "highly suspicious" cargo load that had been traced to the Indian Ocean nation Republic of Seychelles, and where it had previously been aboard the US-flagged container ship MV Maersk Alabama...within 24-hours of off-loading this "highly suspicious" cargo load bound for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the two highly-trained US Navy Seals assigned to protect it, Mark Daniel Kennedy, 43, and Jeffrey Keith Reynolds, 44, were found dead under "suspicious circumstances."
The blog entry is "suspicious" to me :)
http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/mh370-mystery-suspicious-cargo-death-of-2-ex-navy-seals-aboard-mv-maersk-alabama/
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 17, 2014, 11:49:03 PM
Had to look it up myself. The claim goes that...
The blog entry is "suspicious" to me :)
http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/mh370-mystery-suspicious-cargo-death-of-2-ex-navy-seals-aboard-mv-maersk-alabama/
Wow. What a convoluted read. Funnily enough, I actually know Charlie Dragonette. Both he and his wife worked as merchant analysts for ONI in Suitland, MD. The idea he is some sort of James Bond is laughable. I'm sure Charlie would agree.
Found it!
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1962772_10203649012928552_1766810239_n.jpg)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2014, 07:27:10 PM
On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level. If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.
I've had the pleasure of being in a plane that lost pressure. See attached photo.
Passengers have about 15 minutes of oxygen once the masks deploy. Trust me, the pilots go like hell to get the plane down to 10k as fast as they can.
Our pilots did not even make an announcement once they knew they had lost pressure....they just started descending. In hindsight, it was the right decision. In the mean time, we....even the flying waitresses....were left to figure it out on our own.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 17, 2014, 07:27:10 PM
Colonel, so this is the question I have around all this. Why is it even possible for a crew to be able to turn off their transponder? In what instance would it ever be ok not to be squawking back to the tower? I guess I don't understand why pilots would need to turn it off on a commercial aircraft. I get it for military purposes.
????
On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level. If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.
I double checked with a buddy of mine that flies buses over in that neck of the woods and he had some interesting tidbits of info. He got back to me surprisingly fast though, so might be connected to this somehow ;) (sorry Dish ;D)
Maybe Keefe knew this, but I've not spent much time in that area, but apparently the Malaysian civilian radar system does not have altitude azimuth capability (basically they don't have radar for determining the vertical distance). So the 45k to 19k radar track is unreliable at best, more than likely just aberrant data due to a change in weather/terrain between the radar and the aircraft.
Additionally, and I think Keefe talked about this, is the turn to the WSW came in the gap between signing off with Malaysian ATC and the pick up of Vietnam ATC. So basically, they turned at precisely the time when Malaysia wouldn't be looking for them any more on their radar and before Vietnam would be concerned about not picking up comm traffic from the flight.
On a separate note, I heard the news mention terrain following/terrain masking again this morning. This is such a red herring and stupid reporting. The MC-130H Talon II is specifically designed C-130 for the low level, night time penetration mission and it requires two different radar systems slaved together with the ELINT system and a crew of 4 on night vision goggles (two drivers, a nav, and an EWO) with years of training. There is no way two civilian pilots in a 777 at night with no equipment are doing anything lower than 1000 AGL, and even that low would not be something that is unlikely to sustain life.
I think there is probably enough evidence that it was a deliberate action but for what purpose is unknown. There aren't a lot of mile long paved airstrips in that part of the world that are going unused and unnoticed. I doubt the 777 has a cargo purge function, but if so best guess would be they dumped some sort of valuable cargo on the island, but even that seems insane.
Bombay Triangle it is
Oh one other thing, don't buy any of the sharp turn malarky. It was a standard 20 degree turn, very deliberate like you would have on any domestic flight. The line of travel was a drastic change but it was done in a very deliberate and standard manner, likely to not arose passenger and radar suspicion.
The entire thing here is crazy and scary, no matter the outcome. If we ever find out the outcome.
Amazing the technology we have today, and one of the safest/largest commercial airliners just vanishes.
Occam's razor?
http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3
In a controlled situation, how long could a 777 maintain buoyancy after being ditched in an open body of water?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 18, 2014, 09:31:21 AM
Occam's razor?
http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3
That is extremely plausible, though I do have three issues with it. One, and this can be easily explained by coincidence, is the timing of the turn. It occurred in the soft spot of coverage between ATCs and radars. Two, the fact that it flew on with the pilots overwhelmed with out any contact from the rest of the crew or passengers. Surely as it traveled over Malaysia one of the panicked passengers would have attempted a cell phone call. Three based on the latest reports the data systems were turned off prior to the last communication. So that timing is critical, if they talked to ATC after ACARS was lost, the theory holds no water. However, if they reverse the timing of those events, seems a plausible explanation.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 09:43:01 AM
That is extremely plausible, though I do have three issues with it. One, and this can be easily explained by coincidence, is the timing of the turn. It occurred in the soft spot of coverage between ATCs and radars. Two, the fact that it flew on with the pilots overwhelmed with out any contact from the rest of the crew or passengers. Surely as it traveled over Malaysia one of the panicked passengers would have attempted a cell phone call. Three based on the latest reports the data systems were turned off prior to the last communication. So that timing is critical, if they talked to ATC after ACARS was lost, the theory holds no water. However, if they reverse the timing of those events, seems a plausible explanation.
I have similar questions, though would cell phones work out over the ocean...what towers are capable of picking up the signal?
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 09:37:45 AM
In a controlled situation, how long could a 777 maintain buoyancy after being ditched in an open body of water?
Depends on the sea state. I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes ;D but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.
But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly. He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight. Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 09:47:26 AM
Depends on the sea state. I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes ;D but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.
But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly. He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight. Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%
It's ok, the plane can sink to the bottom and then Jack Lemon will come, strap on some balloons along with the US Navy to raise the plane up, without any damage to the fuselage..... ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
I have similar questions, though would cell phones work out over the ocean...what towers are capable of picking up the signal?
That's why the timing is critical, because it wouldn't be over the open ocean. If the pilots were making for an emergency landing site and were overwhelmed before they got there then the passengers would have been alert to the situation over land where towers would have been in range.
Any scenario where there is smoke enough to overwhelm the flight crew means that would be plenty to alert the flight attendants at a minimum and most likely all of the passengers. It's complete speculation on my part but I would think at some point there would have been enough signal strength for someone to communicate via text or voice.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2014, 09:51:28 AM
It's ok, the plane can sink to the bottom and then Jack Lemon will come, strap on some balloons along with the US Navy to raise the plane up, without any damage to the fuselage..... ;)
Man I loved that movie as a kid....especially the part where Joe Patroni (George Kennedy) was available to help/solve every major 747 airline disaster....at sea, in the snow, in mid-air, and at supersonic speeds....he was like the postal service of mechanics.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 09:47:26 AM
Depends on the sea state. I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes ;D but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.
But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly. He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight. Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%
I understand the unlikely probability of success, but if there was something nefarious going on, perhaps it was worth taking that chance.
That said, 15 minutes is way too tight of a window for a chase vessel to reach and stabilize a large plane... so there goes my theory of towing it back to port somewhere. We'd have to be talking high-level military coordination to pull something like this off; almost James Bond-esque.
FWIW - My cousin - active duty USAF pilot who flies in that part of the world - says most probably a pilot suicide or alien abduction. The only way it could have been hijacked is if one of the pilots was in on the plot.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 10:01:33 AM
I understand the unlikely probability of success, but if there was something nefarious going on, perhaps it was worth taking that chance.
That said, 15 minutes is way too tight of a window for a chase vessel to reach and stabilize a large plane... so there goes my theory of towing it back to port somewhere. We'd have to be talking high-level military coordination to pull something like this off; almost James Bond-esque.
FWIW - My cousin - active duty USAF pilot who flies in that part of the world - says most probably a pilot suicide or alien abduction. The only way it could have been hijacked is if one of the pilots was in on the plot.
You know we are clueless when alien abduction is one of the most probable causes ;D
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 09:47:26 AM
Depends on the sea state. I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes ;D but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.
But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly. He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight. Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%
I did not see the interview, but my mom said they interviewed Sully over the weekend. He basically stated your thoughts. He said because it was dark and the ocean is far more unstable than a river that a safe water landing would not have a good chance of success.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2014, 09:46:14 AM
I have similar questions, though would cell phones work out over the ocean...what towers are capable of picking up the signal?
could a jammer of some sort have been used to block cell signals?
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 10:01:33 AM
I understand the unlikely probability of success, but if there was something nefarious going on, perhaps it was worth taking that chance.
That said, 15 minutes is way too tight of a window for a chase vessel to reach and stabilize a large plane... so there goes my theory of towing it back to port somewhere. We'd have to be talking high-level military coordination to pull something like this off; almost James Bond-esque.
FWIW - My cousin - active duty USAF pilot who flies in that part of the world - says most probably a pilot suicide or alien abduction. The only way it could have been hijacked is if one of the pilots was in on the plot.
As my father would say, that dog just ain't gonna hunt. Once that plane is in the water it's going to the bottom...there is no way to make that towable or even lift it out of the water short of some sort of Glomar Explorer monstrosity. Good luck hiding that.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 18, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
You know we are clueless when alien abduction is one of the most probable causes ;D
http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fU5CFGorL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on March 18, 2014, 10:23:39 AM
could a jammer of some sort have been used to block cell signals?
Could have been used, but now we are starting to get into some esoteric spy stuff that after a 12 day investigation would have shown up in financial records or ferreted out in some communications.
I agree with Occum's Razor here, simplest is the most likely. Either there was a fire and some weird circumstances went on(random chance is a thing all the time in aviation, look up the term cascading failure) or the pilots intentionally hijacked the flight to do something with the plane, cargo, and/or passengers which they either pulled off or the whole mess is laying at the bottom of the IO
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 08:11:15 AM
I double checked with a buddy of mine that flies buses over in that neck of the woods and he had some interesting tidbits of info. He got back to me surprisingly fast though, so might be connected to this somehow ;) (sorry Dish ;D)
Maybe Keefe knew this, but I've not spent much time in that area, but apparently the Malaysian civilian radar system does not have altitude azimuth capability (basically they don't have radar for determining the vertical distance). So the 45k to 19k radar track is unreliable at best, more than likely just aberrant data due to a change in weather/terrain between the radar and the aircraft.
Additionally, and I think Keefe talked about this, is the turn to the WSW came in the gap between signing off with Malaysian ATC and the pick up of Vietnam ATC. So basically, they turned at precisely the time when Malaysia wouldn't be looking for them any more on their radar and before Vietnam would be concerned about not picking up comm traffic from the flight.
On a separate note, I heard the news mention terrain following/terrain masking again this morning. This is such a red herring and stupid reporting. The MC-130H Talon II is specifically designed C-130 for the low level, night time penetration mission and it requires two different radar systems slaved together with the ELINT system and a crew of 4 on night vision goggles (two drivers, a nav, and an EWO) with years of training. There is no way two civilian pilots in a 777 at night with no equipment are doing anything lower than 1000 AGL, and even that low would not be something that is unlikely to sustain life.
I think there is probably enough evidence that it was a deliberate action but for what purpose is unknown. There aren't a lot of mile long paved airstrips in that part of the world that are going unused and unnoticed. I doubt the 777 has a cargo purge function, but if so best guess would be they dumped some sort of valuable cargo on the island, but even that seems insane.
Bombay Triangle it is
Your buddy is correct that in ASEAN only Singapore has a civilian 3D phased array radar system that can provide height finding (and even then, it is really for the SAF air defence system.) But what your friend might not be aware of is the RMAF inherited the base at Butterworth near Penang from the RAAF. (In fact, the RAAF still fly C 130s out of there for, ironically, SAR missions.) And Butterworth has an A Band air search radar system with HF capability.
The problem in this case is that the Butterworth radar system faces 270 and the filed flight path and unusual maneuvers for this flight occurred on the 045 from Butterworth. So Butterworth would not have detected the flight until it passed overhead but as it went outbound that radar should have had skin on the 777 for the next 250 NM.
Butterworth also uses the VERA passive ESM system as part of its national IADS. VERA provides typical tracking data (range, altitude, course, speed) but requires a target to be rotating, radiating, or squawking so a passive ESM system would not have seen a bird in EMCON.
As you mention, it does not appear there was ever an ATC hand off from KL to Saigon Center. In order for Saigon ATC to accept the flight they need positive radar skin but this never happened. So the only ATC for this flight was KL. So the real question is why didn't KL Center escalate once it lost contact with this aircraft?
As for terrain masking - this 777 didn't have the gear and the 2 drivers had never been tactical in their lives. The idea of a fully loaded 777 yanking and banking 30' off the deck is ridiculous. I have flown that low in an A 10 and it is a sphincter puckering experience that makes Space Mountain seem like a kiddie ride. An A 10 has the responsiveness, agility and on-board systems that allow it to fly tactical low levels; a 777 does not. And for a chunk of steel that large to avoid radar tracking it would need to be down in the dirt like an A 10. I guarantee those 2 sticks would have dropped a wing or a tail in the drink flying that low - the sink rate alone would have ensured the slightest error brought the flight to a very bad end.
As I have said before, the talking heads on tv keep trotting out various theories that are uninformed, silly, or preposterous. The real questions need to be asked of the Malaysian authorities as they know more than they are telling. Having lived in SE Asia I will say that Malaysian Air Systems is considered a national asset and a lot of this is the Kingdom Checking Six. Reporters in Malaysia who wrote bad things about the Proton were invited to explain themselves by the government. Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are very prickly about negative news and they go to great lengths to ensure bad news simply does not happen.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 09:56:33 AM
Man I loved that movie as a kid....especially the part where Joe Patroni (George Kennedy) was available to help/solve every major 747 airline disaster....at sea, in the snow, in mid-air, and at supersonic speeds....he was like the postal service of mechanics.
LOL. Yup...very well stated
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
Quote from: keefe on March 18, 2014, 11:42:15 AM
Your buddy is correct that in ASEAN only Singapore has a civilian 3D phased array radar system that can provide height finding (and even then, it is really for the SAF air defence system.) But what your friend might not be aware of is the RMAF inherited the base at Butterworth near Penang from the RAAF. (In fact, the RAAF still fly C 130s out of there for, ironically, SAR missions.) And Butterworth has an A Band air search radar system with HF capability.
The problem in this case is that the Butterworth radar system faces 270 and the filed flight path and unusual maneuvers for this flight occurred on the 045 from Butterworth. So Butterworth would not have detected the flight until it passed overhead but as it went outbound that radar should have had skin on the 777 for the next 250 NM.
Butterworth also uses the VERA passive ESM system as part of its national IADS. VERA provides typical tracking data (range, altitude, course, speed) but requires a target to be rotating, radiating, or squawking so a passive ESM system would not have seen a bird in EMCON.
As you mention, it does not appear there was ever an ATC hand off from KL to Saigon Center. In order for Saigon ATC to accept the flight they need positive radar skin but this never happened. So the only ATC for this flight was KL. So the real question is why didn't KL Center escalate once it lost contact with this aircraft?
As for terrain masking - this 777 didn't have the gear and the 2 drivers had never been tactical in their lives. The idea of a fully loaded 777 yanking and banking 30' off the deck is ridiculous. I have flown that low in an A 10 and it is a sphincter puckering experience that makes Space Mountain seem like a kiddie ride. An A 10 has the responsiveness, agility and on-board systems that allow it to fly tactical low levels; a 777 does not. And for a chunk of steel that large to avoid radar tracking it would need to be down in the dirt like an A 10. I guarantee those 2 sticks would have dropped a wing or a tail in the drink flying that low - the sink rate alone would have ensured the slightest error brought the flight to a very bad end.
As I have said before, the talking heads on tv keep trotting out various theories that are uninformed, silly, or preposterous. The real questions need to be asked of the Malaysian authorities as they know more than they are telling. Having lived in SE Asia I will say that Malaysian Air Systems is considered a national asset and a lot of this is the Kingdom Checking Six. Reporters in Malaysia who wrote bad things about the Proton were invited to explain themselves by the government. Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are very prickly about negative news and they go to great lengths to ensure bad news simply does not happen.
I assumed Butterworth had something, knew about VERA but didn't know they had A band there. You are right, it's facing the wrong way to acquire the flight coming back to the island, but should have picked it up going outbound to the IO. That tells me it either went down short of Butterworth but after the standard turn/course change or someone at Butterworth/Malaysian military isn't sharing for some reason.
An interesting read of one of the local papers
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh370-throws-spotlight-on-malaysias-air-force-and-radar-capabilities (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh370-throws-spotlight-on-malaysias-air-force-and-radar-capabilities)
And we are in agreement again on the terrain masking, the radar cross section is huge and even a radar from the 60s could break the 777 out of the ground clutter at anything over 1000 AGL.
For those playing the home version, a 777 can't go slow in a terrain masking scenario, takes too long to spool the engines up to full power to gain altitude(the one place you NEVER want to be is behind the power curve at less than 500 ft - See Asiana Airlines 214 for confirmation). Let's assume its going a modest 360 miles an hour or roughly twice it's typical landing speed but 200 mph below it's cruise speed. Let's also assume they spot a terrain feature 1 mile out(at night without night vision, very unlikely but still) that is roughly 500 feet above their flight level(a simplification but basically they have 1 mile to increase their altitude by 500 feet).
Got all that? At that speed they have 10 seconds to spot the feature, apply power, control the climb so that they climb no more than 1000 feet and then spot the next feature. How much power do they have to apply in that scenario? Lets assume they are at max landing weight, 470,000 lbs(thanks wikipedia) that means they need to add roughly 20 mph of speed to generate the lift required to climb the 500 feet and that means applying roughly 67% of the available thrust to the engines to get that gain in the required time(again based on wikipedia). Not to mention I didn't even factor spool time, or the time from when the pilot commands the thrust to the time the engine delivers the requested thrust if it is available. This could take at least 3 or 4 seconds, probably closer to 6 or 7 with the power required in this scenario.
Keefe you might need to check my napkin math it's been a while. However the point remains, they ain't goin' low in a 777.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 18, 2014, 09:31:21 AM
Occam's razor?
http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3
Keeping a theory as simple as possible is great for science, but, of course, that doesn't mean that the simpler theory is the more realistic. This ultimately leads to the question of whether the ultimate goal of a theory is to be realistic or to be useful--the two do not always coincide. But enough philosophy.
If this theory is true, shouldn't we be able to find the plane in no time, say, a couple of hours? I mean, if this theory is true, then wouldn't we know the exact location, give or take a hundred miles or so? (note aviation is one subject that I know absolutely nothing about. Nothing.)
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 18, 2014, 02:53:17 PM
If this theory is true, shouldn't we be able to find the plane in no time, say, a couple of hours? I mean, if this theory is true, then wouldn't we know the exact location, give or take a hundred miles or so? (note aviation is one subject that I know absolutely nothing about. Nothing.)
Short answer is no. last ping just means last time it talked, there could be several hours of flight time in there, you don't know when it runs out of fuel and impacts the ocean. You also don't know if it hits in the ocean where it sinks to(how deep, did it remain intact, etc). You could certainly narrow the search boundaries but it would still take a considerable amount of time to find something especially if there is no debris on the surface.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 02:51:11 PM
I assumed Butterworth had something, knew about VERA but didn't know they had A band there. You are right, it's facing the wrong way to acquire the flight coming back to the island, but should have picked it up going outbound to the IO. That tells me it either went down short of Butterworth but after the standard turn/course change or someone at Butterworth/Malaysian military isn't sharing for some reason.
An interesting read of one of the local papers
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh370-throws-spotlight-on-malaysias-air-force-and-radar-capabilities (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh370-throws-spotlight-on-malaysias-air-force-and-radar-capabilities)
And we are in agreement again on the terrain masking, the radar cross section is huge and even a radar from the 60s could break the 777 out of the ground clutter at anything over 1000 AGL.
For those playing the home version, a 777 can't go slow in a terrain masking scenario, takes too long to spool the engines up to full power to gain altitude(the one place you NEVER want to be is behind the power curve at less than 500 ft - See Asiana Airlines 214 for confirmation). Let's assume its going a modest 360 miles an hour or roughly twice it's typical landing speed but 200 mph below it's cruise speed. Let's also assume they spot a terrain feature 1 mile out(at night without night vision, very unlikely but still) that is roughly 500 feet above their flight level(a simplification but basically they have 1 mile to increase their altitude by 500 feet).
Got all that? At that speed they have 10 seconds to spot the feature, apply power, control the climb so that they climb no more than 1000 feet and then spot the next feature. How much power do they have to apply in that scenario? Lets assume they are at max landing weight, 470,000 lbs(thanks wikipedia) that means they need to add roughly 20 mph of speed to generate the lift required to climb the 500 feet and that means applying roughly 67% of the available thrust to the engines to get that gain in the required time(again based on wikipedia). Not to mention I didn't even factor spool time, or the time from when the pilot commands the thrust to the time the engine delivers the requested thrust if it is available. This could take at least 3 or 4 seconds, probably closer to 6 or 7 with the power required in this scenario.
Keefe you might need to check my napkin math it's been a while. However the point remains, they ain't goin' low in a 777.
What about going NOE over open water
(assuming it could be done)? Would that do anything to avoid detection in this part of the world?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 18, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
You know we are clueless when alien abduction is one of the most probable causes ;D
Goddamn aliens.
The reporting here is just getting ridiculous
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/maldives-residents-report-seeing-low-flying-aircraft-on-day-mh370-disappear
Quote
Local news site Haveeru Online reported on Tuesday that residents of Kuda Huvadhoo, a remote Maldives island in Dhaal Atoll saw a "low-flying jumbo jet" on the morning of March 8.
Coincidentally, Bahasa Malaysia newspaper Berita Harian also reported on Tuesday that investigators have found five airport runways, which included the Male International Airport in the Maldives, loaded in MH370 pilot Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah's homemade flight simulator.
Oh no... the natives saw a jumbo jet flying over their island. It's not as if there isn't an airport nearby. And don't forget that MALAYSIAN AIRLINES HAS SCHEDULED SERVICE BETWEEN THE MALDIVES AND KL. *smh*
Now the second part of the above makes it interesting, but my guess is that if there was an unscheduled landing at a major international airport, we would have heard about it by now.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 03:39:06 PM
The reporting here is just getting ridiculous
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/maldives-residents-report-seeing-low-flying-aircraft-on-day-mh370-disappear
Oh no... the natives saw a jumbo jet flying over their island. It's not as if there isn't an airport nearby. And don't forget that MALAYSIAN AIRLINES HAS SCHEDULED SERVICE BETWEEN THE MALDIVES AND KL. *smh*
Now the second part of the above makes it interesting, but my guess is that if there was an unscheduled landing at a major international airport, we would have heard about it by now.
All were airports with regularly scheduled service from Malaysian Airlines, with the exception of Diego Garcia. Looking into the pilots is interesting and potentially valuable, but this storyline is a non-starter and dumb.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 03:24:10 PM
What about going NOE over open water (assuming it could be done)? Would that do anything to avoid detection in this part of the world?
Sea state again comes into play(how high are waves), plus you have to worry about altimeter and barometric altitude differences to establish an accurate altitude.
And you would have to be really low especially coming to and away from land as that radar is up high and can "look down" on you(especially the one at Buttermore) and there is no real ground glutter to hide in at sea.
Keefe could answer this better than I, didn't spend much time low with my hair on fire....just what I thought I could get away with in a T-45.
Think of active radar as ripples in a still pond. Throw a stone in, it creates ripples which travel until they hit something and bounce back. Now imagine that pond with a bunch of rocks on the surface, the reflection pattern changes as it hits the rocks such that a leaf could be placed near one that the ripples never "see".
Over the open ocean there are no rocks to divert the radar waves so all they see is the ocean and the airplane...easy to make that out.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 04:00:45 PM
Think of active radar as ripples in a still pond. Throw a stone in, it creates ripples which travel until they hit something and bounce back. Now imagine that pond with a bunch of rocks on the surface, the reflection pattern changes as it hits the rocks such that a leaf could be placed near one that the ripples never "see".
Over the open ocean there are no rocks to divert the radar waves so all they see is the ocean and the airplane...easy to make that out.
Understood... but I'm talking that part of the world, specifically... is there radar capable of picking up those ripples anywhere in the IO?
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 04:03:44 PM
Understood... but I'm talking that part of the world, specifically... is there radar capable of picking up those ripples anywhere in the IO?
Buttermore, the RMAF base on the north side for sure....once they got west of it for at least 250 nautical miles. To east side, not sure but probably.
Sitting here in Starbucks with some colleagues, one of whom was a lead on Boeing's ACARS. He says that ACARS is mounted in the forward main mount wheel well which is only accessible through the flight station during flight. What it means is that one of the two pilots had to physically descend into the hull after they went feet wet and accessed ACARS through a panel in the wheel well bulkhead. He physically had to turn it off and there is no legitimate reason for deselecting ACARS.
This says at least one pilot wanted the flight to go dark which would have required shutting down ACARS. I assumed ACARS could be accessed on the flight deck but somebody needed to go down into the hull in order to switch it off.
Quote from: keefe on March 18, 2014, 09:28:39 PM
Sitting here in Starbucks with some colleagues, one of whom was a lead on Boeing's ACARS. He says that ACARS is mounted in the forward main mount wheel well which is only accessible through the flight station during flight. What it means is that one of the two pilots had to physically descend into the hull after they went feet wet and accessed ACARS through a panel in the wheel well bulkhead. He physically had to turn it off and there is no legitimate reason for deselecting ACARS.
This says at least one pilot wanted the flight to go dark which would have required shutting down ACARS. I assumed ACARS could be accessed on the flight deck but somebody needed to go down into the hull in order to switch it off.
Or, does this point to an electrical fire of some kind....I know it sounds a bit too coincidental.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2014, 09:34:49 PM
Or, does this point to an electrical fire of some kind....I know it sounds a bit too coincidental.
They're now saying the "good night" sign-off came
after the flight was changing directions, which, if true, throws a wrench into the fire theory.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 18, 2014, 09:50:13 PM
They're now saying the "good night" sign-off came after the flight was changing directions, which, if true, throws a wrench into the fire theory.
Yes, it certainly would. Pretty crazy stuff
I can't imagine being a relative....thinking that your loved ones might actually be alive somewhere (highly unlikely) and stringing this along seems in a weird way to be worse than if their was finality from crash news. Not knowing would make it worse for me.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 18, 2014, 02:53:17 PM
Keeping a theory as simple as possible is great for science, but, of course, that doesn't mean that the simpler theory is the more realistic. This ultimately leads to the question of whether the ultimate goal of a theory is to be realistic or to be useful--the two do not always coincide. But enough philosophy.
If this theory is true, shouldn't we be able to find the plane in no time, say, a couple of hours? I mean, if this theory is true, then wouldn't we know the exact location, give or take a hundred miles or so? (note aviation is one subject that I know absolutely nothing about. Nothing.)
It took over two years to find Air France Flight 447 off the coast of Brazil - even knowing the general area where it crashed.. It was the fifth search that finally found it.
Information about using probability & statistics to find that flight can be found here.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-statisticians-could-help-find-flight-370/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2014, 09:34:49 PM
Or, does this point to an electrical fire of some kind....I know it sounds a bit too coincidental.
If there was a fire the last thing a pilot would do would be to leave the flight station and go down into the hull to deselect a vital piece of comms gear. The other thing, beyond discrepancies in the timeline, is that the final radio call made by the FO was not through an O2 mask...meaning there was no fire at that point.
Quote from: keefe on March 18, 2014, 11:07:02 PM
If there was a fire the last thing a pilot would do would be to leave the flight station and go down into the hull to deselect a vital piece of comms gear. The other thing, beyond discrepancies in the timeline, is that the final radio call made by the FO was not through an O2 mask...meaning there was no fire at that point.
Appreciate your input on this. Hopefully, you can add more as more facts come out.
You have said the Malaysian gov't knows more than it is saying, which I have no doubt about. Do you think there is a lot of involvement of the US gov't because of possible terrorism involved or is there a protocol where they would need to request our intervention?
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on March 18, 2014, 10:17:42 AM
I did not see the interview, but my mom said they interviewed Sully over the weekend. He basically stated your thoughts. He said because it was dark and the ocean is far more unstable than a river that a safe water landing would not have a good chance of success.
As MU03 pointed out, the ocean is a far more volatile surface than a river so an airframe will break up much faster at sea. Another major factor is the wing of the 777 versus the wing on other older airframes. The wing loading on the 777 and 78 are far superior and so they have much less surface area which is a major factor in buoyancy. Bottom line is that a 777 or 78 ditching at sea would be far more likely to break up on impact or remain afloat far shorter than a 737.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 09:56:33 AM
....especially the part where Joe Patroni (George Kennedy) was available to help/solve every major 747 airline disaster....at sea, in the snow, in mid-air, and at supersonic speeds....he was like the postal service of mechanics.
That guy was my IP for UPT flying T-38s at Vance AFB. Thought he knew more about flying than the Wright Brothers, Billy Mitchell, Bernoulli, Chuck Yeager, and Robin Olds combined. I still break out in a cold sweat when I think of him...
Quote from: keefe on March 19, 2014, 12:34:53 AM
That guy was my IP for UPT flying T-38s at Vance AFB. Thought he knew more about flying than the Wright Brothers, Billy Mitchell, Bernoulli, Chuck Yeager, and Robin Olds combined. I still break out in a cold sweat when I think of him...
Sweet jebus I could only imagine, my IP was the nicest guy in the world, was kind of a let down. There was almost nothing to grouse about at the end of the day.
What about sabotage?
In theory, would it be possible for a mechanic on the ground (or someone with knowledge of and access to the 777's electromechanicals) to install several "squibs" in a manner that would be readily detected in a pre-flight check and that would - at a preset altitude - sequentially:
1) Kill the transponder
2) Kill ACARS
3) Kill the comms/navigation
4) Disable emergency O2
5) Depressurize the cabin
For all of the cultural differences that exist, I still find it extremely difficult that any suicidal person would take out hundreds of innocent victims, unless the person was trying to make some sort of statement, in which case, you would assume there would be a note or explanation of said statement that would have been found by now (unless they did was and the Malaysians are covering it up for whatever reason).
While atypical, if someone who did this as a way of making a "statement," the only credible explanation as to why we still don't know what that statement is (nearly two weeks later) is that such person is still alive and is deliberately withholding disclosure.
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2014, 09:58:59 AM
What about sabotage?
In theory, would it be possible for a mechanic on the ground (or someone with knowledge of and access to the 777's electromechanicals) to install several "squibs" in a manner that would be readily detected in a pre-flight check and that would - at a preset altitude - sequentially:
1) Kill the transponder
2) Kill ACARS
3) Kill the comms/navigation
4) Disable emergency O2
5) Depressurize the cabin
For all of the cultural differences that exist, I still find it extremely difficult that any suicidal person would take out hundreds of innocent victims, unless the person was trying to make some sort of statement, in which case, you would assume there would be a note or explanation of said statement that would have been found by now (unless they did was and the Malaysians are covering it up for whatever reason).
While atypical, if someone who did this as a way of making a "statement," the only credible explanation as to why we still don't know what that statement is (nearly two weeks later) is that such person is still alive and is deliberately withholding disclosure.
There are too many problems with the grand sabotage theory:
1. No one person could pre-program catastrophic failure as you outline
2. Those systems are not integrated so cascading effects would not ensue
3. Killing comms requires manual action and not electronic/silicon-based impulse
4. The flight deck crew could not begin to taxi with any of those systems disabled or non-functioning - Failure in all of them had to occur once airborne
Let me point out the rub in all of the speculation you hear on tv or read in the press and why I suspect piracy.
- Disabling comms systems doesn't bring down the jet. Whoever shut down IFF and ACARS wanted to prevent the on-board systems to stop telling people on the ground where the jet was, where it was heading, at what speed, and where it landed. If you are going to crash the jet you don't really need to disable those systems. Disabling these systems suggests someone wanted to mask course, speed, and landing data from authorities.
- Flight deck crew don't need to incapacitate themselves through hypoxia in order to bring about catastrophic failure. The pilot simply needs to push the yoke forward, hard. And if he wants to bring about that result there is no reason to disable comms systems. Especially ACARS, which required one of the two pilots to open a panel in the flight deck floor, climb down into the hull, open another panel in the wheel well, reach in and flip a series of switches. From what my colleague told me, Boeing designed the manual shut down system for emergency purposes but they made it difficult enough that a person would really want to shut it down.
- The pilots wouldn't need to do depressurize the cabin in order to incapacitate the passengers. Start yankin' and bankin' violently. Anyone not strapped in is going to get thrown around and people actually wearing a seat belt are going to be vomiting. Depressurizing is difficult to do and there are far easier ways to subdue the passengers. Besides, given flight deck security measures, nobody can access the flight station without blowing up the airframe.
- Remember that pilots don't need to sneak weapons or bombs on board. They are already in control of the aircraft. Terrorists try to sneak weapons on board so they can take control of the aircraft. The 9/11 hajis didn't throw box cutters at the towers or the Pentagon. They used the box cutters to take control.
The question is really why did the flight deck crew secure all of those systems designed to tell the world where the aircraft was located, headed, and landed? All the rest is chaff.
I would recommend looking into the background of Anwar Ibrahim. I lived in Jakarta and Singapore and and am familiar with the story of Anwar who was the hand-picked successor to Dr. Mahatir, Malaysia's long-serving PM. Anwar fell out of favor and Mahatir and the ruling UMNO party went after him hard. He was accused of pedophilia and jailed under Islamic morality laws. This is a divisive issue in Malay politics and it has come out that the Captain of this flight was not only a supporter of Anwar's but attended Anwar's trial the day of the flight.
If there was malfeasance I am guessing the Captain's support for Anwar is significant. There is no evidence the aircraft crashed and everything we know about the flight is that its comms systems were disabled and the bird deviated from its filed flight plan. Whoever did all of that wanted to take the asset intact.
Quote from: brandx on March 18, 2014, 11:15:21 PM
Appreciate your input on this. Hopefully, you can add more as more facts come out.
You have said the Malaysian gov't knows more than it is saying, which I have no doubt about. Do you think there is a lot of involvement of the US gov't because of possible terrorism involved or is there a protocol where they would need to request our intervention?
There is no question the Malaysian government knows more than has been said. And we do know that various US entities are involved in the investigation. Typically, the support provided by The Boeing Company, FAA, NTSB, DoD, and FBI would be synched through the embassy and specifically the LATT and DATT offices. But to suggest the US is providing anything more than support is silly. The USG was no more involved in these events than Aliens, dead former SEALs, or Elvis.
Quote from: keefe on March 19, 2014, 12:52:11 PM
There is no question the Malaysian government knows more than has been said. And we do know that various US entities are involved in the investigation. Typically, the support provided by The Boeing Company, FAA, NTSB, DoD, and FBI would be synched through the embassy and specifically the LATT and DATT offices. But to suggest the US is providing anything more than support is silly. The USG was no more involved in these events than Aliens, dead former SEALs, or Elvis.
I didn't mean to suggest there was any involvement - rather that we are involved after the fact (being the world's policeman and all ;D) over the worry there is some terrorism element to the whole affair.
Quote from: brandx on March 19, 2014, 02:53:30 PM
I didn't mean to suggest there was any involvement - rather that we are involved after the fact (being the world's policeman and all ;D) over the worry there is some terrorism element to the whole affair.
x
I wasn't singling you out. (I am direct but rarely is that editorializing even if the tone might sound harsh; 22 years in the AF does that to one's speech patterns.) Sorry if it came across that way.
There has been press reporting that we are involved and the fact is we are very close with the government in KL. Our assistance would be legal, technical and military. FBI support would be coordinated through the Legal Attache's office while technical and intelligence support would run through the Defense Attache's team.
My guess is that this is much more about domestic Malaysian politics but it is nothing more than that - a guess. As I have said before, whoever commandeered that aircraft wanted to hide where it was going and how it got there. This was not about suicide.
Quote from: keefe on March 19, 2014, 12:32:06 PM
There are too many problems with the grand sabotage theory:
1. No one person could pre-program catastrophic failure as you outline
2. Those systems are not integrated so cascading effects would not ensue
3. Killing comms requires manual action and not electronic/silicon-based impulse
4. The flight deck crew could not begin to taxi with any of those systems disabled or non-functioning - Failure in all of them had to occur once airborne
Let me point out the rub in all of the speculation you hear on tv or read in the press and why I suspect piracy.
- Disabling comms systems doesn't bring down the jet. Whoever shut down IFF and ACARS wanted to prevent the on-board systems to stop telling people on the ground where the jet was, where it was heading, at what speed, and where it landed. If you are going to crash the jet you don't really need to disable those systems. Disabling these systems suggests someone wanted to mask course, speed, and landing data from authorities.
- Flight deck crew don't need to incapacitate themselves through hypoxia in order to bring about catastrophic failure. The pilot simply needs to push the yoke forward, hard. And if he wants to bring about that result there is no reason to disable comms systems. Especially ACARS, which required one of the two pilots to open a panel in the flight deck floor, climb down into the hull, open another panel in the wheel well, reach in and flip a series of switches. From what my colleague told me, Boeing designed the manual shut down system for emergency purposes but they made it difficult enough that a person would really want to shut it down.
- The pilots wouldn't need to do depressurize the cabin in order to incapacitate the passengers. Start yankin' and bankin' violently. Anyone not strapped in is going to get thrown around and people actually wearing a seat belt are going to be vomiting. Depressurizing is difficult to do and there are far easier ways to subdue the passengers. Besides, given flight deck security measures, nobody can access the flight station without blowing up the airframe.
- Remember that pilots don't need to sneak weapons or bombs on board. They are already in control of the aircraft. Terrorists try to sneak weapons on board so they can take control of the aircraft. The 9/11 hajis didn't throw box cutters at the towers or the Pentagon. They used the box cutters to take control.
The question is really why did the flight deck crew secure all of those systems designed to tell the world where the aircraft was located, headed, and landed? All the rest is chaff.
I would recommend looking into the background of Anwar Ibrahim. I lived in Jakarta and Singapore and and am familiar with the story of Anwar who was the hand-picked successor to Dr. Mahatir, Malaysia's long-serving PM. Anwar fell out of favor and Mahatir and the ruling UMNO party went after him hard. He was accused of pedophilia and jailed under Islamic morality laws. This is a divisive issue in Malay politics and it has come out that the Captain of this flight was not only a supporter of Anwar's but attended Anwar's trial the day of the flight.
If there was malfeasance I am guessing the Captain's support for Anwar is significant. There is no evidence the aircraft crashed and everything we know about the flight is that its comms systems were disabled and the bird deviated from its filed flight plan. Whoever did all of that wanted to take the asset intact.
I suspected piracy from Day 1; an airplane doesn't disappear unless it wants to disappear, and if someone wants it to disappear, you're absolutely correct in that it means that someone wants the plane intact; otherwise, as you said... you simply drop it in the drink.
That said, thank you for debunking the logic of the sabotage theory, even though you didn't address whether it was logistically possible (whatever circuit had to be disabled to kill the xponder and ACARS, couldn't that also be done by squibbing a single wire (or two) somewhere, thereby not interrupting any other systems)? Sabotage the only thing that I could believe would be plausible this long after the incident if it wasn't an act of piracy... other than extreme Malay incompetence, which I suppose should be left on the table until it's proven otherwise.
However, if this is a piracy, I caution about getting anyone's hopes up about the passengers... attempted piracy and successful piracy can have very different outcomes. But the only thing more precious than an airplane is its cargo... if all you really wanted was a 777, there are multiple ways to make one disappear -- you don't pick the one method that carries the liability of a couple hundred witnesses unless you want those witnesses too.
Any thoughts here about one of the pilots owning a flight simulator with deleted files regarding the simulator?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 19, 2014, 03:44:21 PM
Any thoughts here about one of the pilots owning a flight simulator with deleted files regarding the simulator?
The only thing that I would find suspect about a pilot having a flight simulator at home is if a pilot
didn't have some sort of flight simulator at home.
Watch this...
Hey Keefe --- do you prefer MS Flight Sim or X-Plane, and what version are you currently running?
Deleted files... so what. At some point, you clear out your flight log. He might have needed disk space. He might have been planning to upgrade his software. He might have archived it somewhere. He might have hit the "Clear History" button by mistake. Not to mention, he did it over a month ago; not the night before; if there was something nefarious afoot, don't you think he would have at least attempted to destroy the evidence completely rather than just click 'Delete'?
EDIT: I'm going to go home tonight, dust off my Sidewinder joystick, throw in the MSFSXGold DVD, log a FP to take a 777 from KL to Beijing, divert from the route an hour in, kill my comms, and start doing some of that yankin' and bankin' Keefe was talking about. Maybe Barbara Walters will want to interview me over the weekend as some sort of expert on Malaysian flight simulations.
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2014, 03:37:53 PM
I suspected piracy from Day 1; an airplane doesn't disappear unless it wants to disappear, and if someone wants it to disappear, you're absolutely correct in that it means that someone wants the plane intact; otherwise, as you said... you simply drop it in the drink.
That said, thank you for debunking the logic of the sabotage theory, even though you didn't address whether it was logistically possible (whatever circuit had to be disabled to kill the xponder and ACARS, couldn't that also be done by squibbing a single wire (or two) somewhere, thereby not interrupting any other systems)? Sabotage the only thing that I could believe would be plausible this long after the incident if it wasn't an act of piracy... other than extreme Malay incompetence, which I suppose should be left on the table until it's proven otherwise.
However, if this is a piracy, I caution about getting anyone's hopes up about the passengers... attempted piracy and successful piracy can have very different outcomes. But the only thing more precious than an airplane is its cargo... if all you really wanted was a 777, there are multiple ways to make one disappear -- you don't pick the one method that carries the liability of a couple hundred witnesses unless you want those witnesses too.
Sorry, Benny, if I wasn't clear. You cannot move the aircraft if those comms systems are off line so we know they were working up front. And because they are discrete systems failure in other avionics will not crash them. From my colleague the Boeing ACARs lead, it is bloody difficult to manually take ACARs off line. You have to physically jump through hoops of fire to get at it. We know that both ACARs and IFF were squawking as they climbed out to altitude; it's when they leveled off that the flight went NORDO.
At that point they were still under positive radar control by KL ATC. A key question is how did KL Center escalate and what did the Malaysian government do to manage the response because at the instant the aircraft went dark they knew there was a huge problem. The Malaysian authorities know a lot more of the story than they have released but I doubt it has anything to do with incompetence. And there is a lot they also do not know. I am sure we will hear more but only when they have a reason to brief the public.
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2014, 04:00:56 PM
The only thing that I would find suspect about a pilot having a flight simulator at home is if a pilot didn't have some sort of flight simulator at home.
Watch this...
Hey Keefe --- do you prefer MS Flight Sim or X-Plane, and what version are you currently running?
Deleted files... so what. At some point, you clear out your flight log. He might have needed disk space. He might have been planning to upgrade his software. He might have archived it somewhere. He might have hit the "Clear History" button by mistake. Not to mention, he did it over a month ago; not the night before; if there was something nefarious afoot, don't you think he would have at least attempted to destroy the evidence completely rather than just click 'Delete'?
C'mon. My wife was a 20 year Softie. MS Flight. But I never used it to fly F 16s or A 10s. I flew virtually every other airframe, especially vintage aircraft.
Nothing unusual about having a sim game at home. The reason the military and commercial carriers have guys use sims, other than they don't burn gas, is that it is the best way to test Emergency Procedures (EPs.) Sims realistically model catastrophic situations which test a pilot's EP reflexes. If you crash in a sim you restart and try again.
I know there are questions about the Capt having a sim at home - the question is how sophisticated was it. Also, if he used it to practice approaches into the Maldives, Somalia, or Seychelles then there is more to the story. At this point I am not conversant in the sim story of this case but will know more later tonight.
Quote from: keefe on March 19, 2014, 04:04:38 PM
Sorry, Benny, if I wasn't clear. You cannot move the aircraft if those comms systems are off line so we know they were working up front. And because they are discrete systems failure in other avionics will not crash them. From my colleague the Boeing ACARs lead, it is bloody difficult to manually take ACARs off line. You have to physically jump through hoops of fire to get at it. We know that both ACARs and IFF were squawking as they climbed out to altitude; it's when they leveled off that the flight went NORDO.
I'm not saying you take those systems offline before the flight... what I'm talking about is a technician or mechanic who goes below the deck hours, days, weeks, or maybe months before the flight and places an e-match (remember those things used to set off model rockets remotely... same concept, but hot enough to melt a wire) that's triggered by some sort of timer or pressure sensor that might be hidden nearby. Wrap the wire with some fireproof material, and you wouldn't even see the e-match ignite - much less hear anything - even if it was right in front of you. Set a few of them to go off in sequence, and voila... instant seaplane sans pontoons. Plane goes up normally, systems report normally, plane goes down without a trace.
Quote from: keefe on March 19, 2014, 04:11:56 PM
C'mon. My wife was a 20 year Softie. MS Flight. But I never used it to fly F 16s or A 10s. I flew virtually every other airframe, especially vintage aircraft.
You suck. My favorite way to kill time is to fly the F/A-18 at ~1500' from Waukegan to Milwaukee, turn left 90 degrees, and crash that $50M piece of garbage into Camp Randall on full afterburners.
^ I blame Benny B for what happened to flight MH370
you know the NSA is reading your posts, don't you?
Quote from: Benny B on March 19, 2014, 04:18:30 PM
I'm not saying you take those systems offline before the flight... what I'm talking about is a technician or mechanic who goes below the deck hours, days, weeks, or maybe months before the flight and places an e-match (remember those things used to set off model rockets remotely... same concept, but hot enough to melt a wire) that's triggered by some sort of timer or pressure sensor that might be hidden nearby. Wrap the wire with some fireproof material, and you wouldn't even see the e-match ignite - much less hear anything - even if it was right in front of you. Set a few of them to go off in sequence, and voila... instant seaplane sans pontoons. Plane goes up normally, systems report normally, plane goes down without a trace.
Without having the one line diagram schematic in front of me, it's theoretically conceivable, but highly unlikely. Wires are routed in aircraft in bundles so it's very unlikely there is a discrete location where you can melt one wire and not others. Additionally the access to those wires is likely to be limited and the wiring to coordinate such a group melt would be difficult in of itself. As I type, I think I should change my answer to no carnal knowledging way.
Plus the latest report indicates the course change was programmed prior to the ACARS going down
Quote from: mu03eng on March 19, 2014, 04:54:55 PM
Without having the one line diagram schematic in front of me, it's theoretically conceivable, but highly unlikely. Wires are routed in aircraft in bundles so it's very unlikely there is a discrete location where you can melt one wire and not others. Additionally the access to those wires is likely to be limited and the wiring to coordinate such a group melt would be difficult in of itself. As I type, I think I should change my answer to no carnal knowledging way.
Plus the latest report indicates the course change was programmed prior to the ACARS going down
If the pilot was trying to make the plane invisible, for whatever reason, wouldn't he do it after the ACARS went down?
All of this is so confusing
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on March 19, 2014, 04:30:41 PM
^ I blame Benny B for what happened to flight MH370
you know the NSA is reading your posts, don't you?
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:arc:video:southparkstudios.com:358867e0-d85b-445d-af82-a5e3a26399ab
Anybody interested in learning more about this mystery and looking for a central location, check out
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-310.html
It's a forum of professional pilots, like PilotSCOOP sorta. The link takes you to page 310, but you can roam around from there.
Quote from: keefe on March 19, 2014, 04:11:56 PM
C'mon. My wife was a 20 year Softie. MS Flight. But I never used it to fly F 16s or A 10s. I flew virtually every other airframe, especially vintage aircraft.
Nothing unusual about having a sim game at home. The reason the military and commercial carriers have guys use sims, other than they don't burn gas, is that it is the best way to test Emergency Procedures (EPs.) Sims realistically model catastrophic situations which test a pilot's EP reflexes. If you crash in a sim you restart and try again.
I know there are questions about the Capt having a sim at home - the question is how sophisticated was it. Also, if he used it to practice approaches into the Maldives, Somalia, or Seychelles then there is more to the story. At this point I am not conversant in the sim story of this case but will know more later tonight.
That is obviously the most important thing. If it was just software, who cares. If it was something more substantial...
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 19, 2014, 05:26:43 PM
Anybody interested in learning more about this mystery and looking for a central location, check out
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-310.html
It's a forum of professional pilots, like PilotSCOOP sorta. The link takes you to page 310, but you can roam around from there.
Does that board go Hiroshima when Droner17 starts posting?
I have to say, I don't understand half the crap you guys are talking about, but I have a better sense of what's going on with this thing from reading this, then most of the other outlets combined.
This is why I can't quit scoop, despite all the repetitive, whiney bitches. maybe I'll just limit myself to the super bar.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 20, 2014, 09:07:36 AM
I have to say, I don't understand half the crap you guys are talking about, but I have a better sense of what's going on with this thing from reading this, then most of the other outlets combined.
This is why I can't quit scoop, despite all the repetitive, whiney bitches. maybe I'll just limit myself to the super bar.
+1
Superbar is where its at! Lots of very intelligent folks on Scoop, makes for some great discussions.
Quote from: Benny B on March 20, 2014, 08:53:41 AM
Does that board go Hiroshima when Droner17 starts posting?
Hmm, "Droner17" is eerily similar to "Dreadman24"...coincidence?
Also, the poster NinoBountyHunter is a pilot who professes to love aviation, but, for whatever reason, is always praising sailing and the benefits of maritime travel.
The poster MavericksFather only posts to harshly criticize something that Ray LaHood does. Anyone who commends LaHood is a "gargler."
And CaptainCrunch doesn't seem to post all too often, but when he does, he laboriously nitpicks every point that someone else has made.
Lots of similarities, that's for sure.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 20, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
Hmm, "Droner17" is eerily similar to "Dreadman24"...coincidence?
Also, the poster NinoBountyHunter is a pilot who professes to love aviation, but, for whatever reason, is always praising sailing and the benefits of maritime travel.
The poster MavericksFather only posts to harshly criticize something that Ray LaHood does. Anyone who commends LaHood is a "gargler."
And CaptainCrunch doesn't seem to post all too often, but when he does, he laboriously nitpicks every point that someone else has made.
Lots of similarities, that's for sure.
I was thinking more along the lines of Droner17 being an analogue to SMU17, but I'm curious as to whether NinoBountyHunter posts under Looptheloop's screen name occasionally.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 20, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
Hmm, "Droner17" is eerily similar to "Dreadman24"...coincidence?
Also, the poster NinoBountyHunter is a pilot who professes to love aviation, but, for whatever reason, is always praising sailing and the benefits of maritime travel.
It's gotta be something with aviation, both my dad and I are avid yachtsmen, can't beat an 80 degree day hiked all the way out on a 18ft catamaran doing 30 knots.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 20, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
It's gotta be something with aviation, both my dad and I are avid yachtsmen, can't beat an 80 degree day hiked all the way out on a 18ft catamaran doing 30 knots.
Similar physics with planes and sailboats. The sail on a sailboat acts like the wing on a plane. MU03, I know, I am preaching to the choir.
30 knots is screaming. I'll take 8 knots and a beam reach on a 45 ft. Morgan in the Keys any time.
Looking out over the GOM right now. Blowing stink from the NW and 6 ft seas. Good stuff.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 20, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
It's gotta be something with aviation, both my dad and I are avid yachtsmen, can't beat an 80 degree day hiked all the way out on a 18ft catamaran doing 30 knots.
Safe to say we can now merge this with the bitchiest, most annoying thread.
Quote from: real chili 83 on March 20, 2014, 02:53:50 PM
Similar physics with planes and sailboats. The sail on a sailboat acts like the wing on a plane. MU03, I know, I am preaching to the choir.
30 knots is screaming. I'll take 8 knots and a beam reach on a 45 ft. Morgan in the Keys any time.
Looking out over the GOM right now. Blowing stink from the NW and 6 ft seas. Good stuff.
If you can fly an aircraft you can sail a boat. My father was a fighter pilot who loved sailing so I grew up earning my water hours by scraping barnacles. I have owned two 36' in my time - a Morgan and a Yamaha. Very different vessels but both superb sailers.
I have taken out cats but they are not sailboats. I'm with chili - throwing out a spinnaker and burying the needle is more fun than 20+ kts.
One hand on the helm, one hand on a cocktail, and bury the rail.
Man, is that comment wide open for interpretation. :o
Quote from: keefe on March 20, 2014, 03:17:13 PM
If you can fly an aircraft you can sail a boat. My father was a fighter pilot who loved sailing so I grew up earning my water hours by scraping barnacles. I have owned two 36' in my time - a Morgan and a Yamaha. Very different vessels but both superb sailers.
I have taken out cats but they are not sailboats. I'm with chili - throwing out a spinnaker and burying the needle is more fun than 20+ kts.
On don't get me wrong I enjoy the heck out of my buddies Newport 31, but nothing quite like living on the knife edge of disaster as you have to balance a hundred different variables at the same time. It takes a lot of instinct and feel that seems relaxing to me.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 20, 2014, 04:05:00 PM
On don't get me wrong I enjoy the heck out of my buddies Newport 31, but nothing quite like living on the knife edge of disaster as you have to balance a hundred different variables at the same time. It takes a lot of instinct and feel that seems relaxing to me.
I'm sure your dad knows the USAF Fighter Pilot's Rules for Life. Rule #3 is the "3 F Rule." If it Floats, Flies, or ...uh...Fornicates it's cheaper to rent.
I have broken two of the three in my life.
Quote from: keefe on March 20, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
I'm sure your dad knows the USAF Fighter Pilot's Rules for Life. Rule #3 is the "3 F Rule." If it Floats, Flies, or ...uh...Fornicates it's cheaper to rent.
I have broken two of the three in my life.
You bought yourself a Lund?
Quote from: keefe on March 20, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
I'm sure your dad knows the USAF Fighter Pilot's Rules for Life. Rule #3 is the "3 F Rule." If it Floats, Flies, or ...uh...Fornicates it's cheaper to rent.
I have broken two of the three in my life.
Sure he did, as a guy that came out of MAC he also shared the MAC corollary to those rules, "anything that comes out of a USAF fighter pilot's should be modified by a scientific fudge factor of 1.672 in whatever direction brings it more inline with reality."
;D
Quote from: mu03eng on March 20, 2014, 06:57:22 PM
Sure he did, as a guy that came out of MAC he also shared the MAC corollary to those rules, "anything that comes out of a USAF fighter pilot's should be modified by a scientific fudge factor of 1.672 in whatever direction brings it more inline with reality."
;D
Only 1.672??
The sad reality is that the AMC Trash Haulers actually get the better deals. Fast Movers deploy to Al Asad or Prince Sultan Air Base. BUFs and BONEs deploy to Diego Garcia. Trash Haulers get put up in nice hotels in Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, and Singapore. I mean, WTFO?
Quote from: keefe on March 20, 2014, 07:38:39 PM
Only 1.672??
The sad reality is that the AMC Trash Haulers actually get the better deals. Fast Movers deploy to Al Asad or Prince Sultan Air Base. BUFs and BONEs deploy to Diego Garcia. Trash Haulers get put up in nice hotels in Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, and Singapore. I mean, WTFO?
Benefit of the doubt I guess.
I do remember as a kid they had to stage up to Anchorage, AK for some low level training and came back with something like 50 pounds of king crab jammed in the wheel wells where it stayed cold on the way back to Hurlburt. There was an impromptu squadron party for the families on the tarmac, it was awesome.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 21, 2014, 08:02:37 AM
Benefit of the doubt I guess.
I do remember as a kid they had to stage up to Anchorage, AK for some low level training and came back with something like 50 pounds of king crab jammed in the wheel wells where it stayed cold on the way back to Hurlburt. There was an impromptu squadron party for the families on the tarmac, it was awesome.
Used to do cross country's to NAS Brunswick in Maine. You could actually order live lobster when you filed and they would bring them out to your aircraft right on the ramp while pre-flighting. We stored them in the blivet so when we got up to altitude the air temp was -70 and they would freeze up solid as a rock. After landing they would thaw out and just as they began crawling around we would throw them into a pot of boiling water. Talk about a sh1tty day...