One minute after MH370’s flight crew said “Good Night” to Malaysia air traffic controls, and five seconds after the plane passed waypoint IGARI at 1720:31 UTC, the plane’s Mode S signal disappeared from air traffic control screens. As it reached the border of the Ho Chi Minh Flight Information Region (FIR) approximately 50 seconds after that, the plane made an abrupt 180 degree turn. The radius of this turn was so small, and the ground speed so low, that it appears to have been effected via a semi-aerobatic maneuver called a “chandelle.” Similar to a “box canyon turn,” this involves climbing under power while also banking steeply. The maneuver offered WWI pilots a way to reverse their direction of flight quickly in a dogfight.
Chandelles are not a normal part of commercial 777 operation. They would not be used by pilots responding to in-flight fire.
The fact that such an aggressive maneuver was flown suggests that whoever was at the controls was highly motivated to change their direction of flight. Specifically, instead of going east, they wanted to go west.
At the completion of the left-hand U-turn the plane found itself back in Malaysia-controlled airspace close to the Thai border. It flew at high speed (likely having increased engine thrust and dived from the top of its chandelle climb) toward Kota Bharu and then along the zig-zaggy border between peninsular Malaysia and Thailand (briefly passing through the outer fringe of Thai airspace) before making a right-hand turn south of Penang. We know this “based mostly on the analysis of primary radar recordings from the civilian ATC radars at the Kuala Lumpur (KUL) Area Control Centre (ACC) and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia; plus (apparently) the air defense radars operated by the RMAF south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast,” according to AIN Online.
At 18:02, while over the small island of Pulau Perak, the plane disappeared from primary radar, presumable because it had exceeded the range of the radar at Penang, which at that point lay 83 nautical miles directly behind the plane. Then, at 18:22:12, another blip was recorded, 160 miles to the northwest.
The most-asked question about the 18:22 blip is: why did the plane disappear then? But a more pressing question is: why did it reappear? If the plane was already too faint to be discerned by Penang when it was at Pulau Perak, then how on earth could it have been detected when it was three times further away?
One possibility is that it was picked up not by Malaysian radar, but by the Thai radar installation at Phuket. An AFP report from March 2014 quoted Thailand’s Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn as saying that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea,” although “the signal was sporadic.”
At 18:22, the plane was approximately 150 miles from Phuket. This is well beyond the range at which Penang had ceased being able to detect the plane. What’s more, when the plane had passed VAMPI it had been only about 120 miles from Phuket. If it hadn’t seen the plane when it was at VAMPI, how was it able to detect it when it was 30 miles further? And why just for a momentary blip?
I don’t believe that, as some have suggested, the plane climbed, was detected, and then dived again. As Victor Iannello has earlier pointed out, the plane was flying at around 500 knots, which is very fast, and suggests a high level of motivation to be somewhere else, not bleeding off speed through needless altitude changes.
I propose that what happened at 18:22 was that the plane was turning. Entering into a right bank, the plane would turn its wings temporarily toward the Phuket radar station, temporarily presenting a larger cross section. Then, when the plane leveled its wings to straighten out, the cross section would shrink, potentially causing the plane to disappear.
Why a right bank? The diagram at top is an annotated version of one presented in the DSTG’s “Bayesian Methods” book. The vertical white line is the 18:25:27 ping arc. The orange line represents the path from the 18:22:12 radar detection to the first ping arc. It is 13 miles long. To travel 13 miles in 3.25 minutes requires a ground speed of 240 knots. Prior to final radar return, MH370 was traveling at approximately 490 knots. A plane can’t slow down that quickly without a radical climbing maneuver, which can be dangerous at cruise altitude (cf Air France 447.)
If it had continued at its previous pace, the plane would have traveled 26.5 miles in that time — enough to carry it to the unlabeled yellow thumbtack. Or, to turn to the right and take the path shown in green.
I don’t mean this path to seem so precise and deterministic; there are errors associated with both the position of the ping arc and the radar return. The ping arc, for instance, is generally understood to have an error bar of about 10 km. If the ping arc radius is 10 km larger, and the radar hit location stays the same, then the heading will be be 336 degrees instead of 326 degrees; if the ping radius is 10 km smaller, the angle will be 310 degrees, representing just a 20 degree right turn from a straight-ahead path.
It does not, however, seem possible that the combined radar and ping-arc errors will allow a scenario in which the plane continued on its VAMPI-to-MEKAR heading and speed. As the “Bayesian Methods” book puts it, “the filtered speed at the output of the Kalman filter is not consistent with the 18.25 measurement, and predictions based purely on primary radar data on this will have a likelihood very close to zero.” Neil Gordon confirmed to me in our conversation that something must have changed.
Dr Bobby Ulich, in his recent work examing different flight-path scenarios, has also concluded that the plane turned north at this time. He looked at a southern turn, too, but observed that “the left-hand turn… needs a turning rate higher than the auto-pilot bank limit allows.”
Looking at the over picture of MH370’s first hour post-abduction, we note that:
- The timing of the silencing of the electronics was coordinated to within several seconds to the optimum time to evade detection.
- The 180-degree turnaround maneuver was highly aggressive.
- The plane’s course allowed it to remain in Malaysian airspace. After Penang it stayed closer to the Indonesian FIR (lower black line) than the Thai FIR (upper black line).
- Post diversion, the plane was traveling at high speed, faster than normal cruise flight. This suggests that whoever was flying it was motivated to escape primary radar surveillance–they wanted to get away.
- When last observed, MH370 was likely making a turn to the northwest, in the general direction of Port Blair in the Andaman islands. This is consistent with Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn’s assertion that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea.”
The overall shape of the flight path from IGARI to 18:25 is U-shaped, curving around Thai airspace. In the Malacca Strait it remained closer to the Indonesian side than the the Thai side. It is possible that the turn at 18:22 resulted from a compromise between two goals: to stay beyond the detection range of the radar station at Phuket, and to travel in a northwesterly direction.
It is widely believed that, since the plane presumable ended up in the southern Indian Ocean, the flight up the Malacca Strait was undertaken in order to avoid penetrating Indonesian airspace en route to the southern ocean. If this were goal, and the person flying the plane should have turned to the left at 18:22, onto a westerly or west-southwesterly heading.
The fact that they did not suggests that, whatever ultimately transpired aboard the plane, the goal prior to the “final major turn” was a destination to the northwest, and that the reason the plane flew southwest from IGARI before turning northwest was to avoid Thai airspace and radar surveillance.
@DennisW
“Susie has ignored the question” “where is the other end”….
That is not true, I responded almost immediately. It could be possible there was never meant to be a “other end”. If something in that cargo hold was the genesis, then the “other end” may have been the destruction of all in a most desolate place.
@Susie
OK. I got that, but thought that I was drawing an incorrect conclusion.
What could it have been to possibly warrant that action?
@Bruce
I am thinking US Intelligence has offered that they saw no white hot traces on their missle monitoring screens. So I am trying to understand if the oil rig worker saw Moon or rig flare flames reflecting off an aircraft. On this night Moon was set by MH370 take off time so that does not work unless the rig guy saw an earlier flight not MH370.
@DennisW
The facetious nature of your question is noted. Speculation of cargo that could merit intentional loss of life would expedite a quick trip to conspiracy theorist land. What is important in this diatribe is the question of rationale. The theory that is constantly discussed here with ease, an incredibly bizarre almost baseless assumption, claiming Captain Zaharie goes rogue one day to commit mass murder which encompasses flying an 8+ hour all nighter. And with the same brazen illogical logic, the theory peddlers have no problem rationalizing the reason he wanted the “other end” to be 8+ hours into the SIO. Because this respected man who went crazy one day and killed hundreds of people and himself, placed vast importance in the plane never being found, and that’s it. How can anyone, who even half heartedly supports the constitution of that proposed scenario, have the audacity to question logic and motive of the plane being hijacked for it’s cargo.
@Susie, A cargo heist to subsequently destroy it in the SIO makes no sense to me. If destruction was the purpose and goal of the hijackers they would have downed the aircraft as soon as they took control. This is not about blaming ZS without merit. So far, all facts that we do know point his way even it it is circumstantial IMO. On the flip side, you feel just as strongly about ZS not being involved. Fair. But then come with a plausible cargo theory that fit the facts we know today.
@All
Now we’re cookin’ …. we’re talking Cargo and eyewitness – possibly the most important clues we have in our possession.
Go back to Day 1 and re-assess what we were told and why.
I trust eyewitness and the Curtin boom ahead of ISAT data. Anything the MY have willingly provided is likely tainted as, for their own reasons, the do not want the plane to be found – hence yanking the surface searches then making us focus on the wrong haystacks in the wrong field.
@Bruce…Tons of gold? Hussein wouldn’t have had time for an interview for he would be elbowing his way to the front and leading the search himself to get it back. Navy seals? For real?
@GortoZ. – agree!! Must relook at all information. Especially what exactly happened at the strange manoeuvre just past IGARI (maybe it was done to avoid a oncoming aircraft/fighter jet).
Washington Post article re: Blaine Gibson
dlvr.it/MKWyJR
Just a non-controversial overview/interview
@Gortoz
You might keep in mind that 80% of the people freed by the Innocence Project were convicted on the basis of eye witness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable.
As far as cargo is concerned we know nothing whatsoever.
The Curtin boom does not stand up to even elementary physics.
Tossing the ISAT data in the rubbish bin?
How can you conclude that this is progress?
What am i missing here?
And now, in addition to all the other labels I have collected, i get called facetious for asking a reasonable and well-intentioned question.
Oh well, at least I have experienced the rabbit hole first hand. Good luck. You have the field to yourselves now.
@Susie, IF ZS is the non rogue person you claim and that pointing the finger at him is baseless, you would also be able to fill in the blanks on what he or Fariq would have done in case of a hijacking.Or the passengers for that matter. After 9/11 people do not sit back like docile puppets. They act. As would ZS/F. Hijacking comes with complete consternation and confusion. ZS/F would have found a way to use the ELT or other means to alert the ground. They would not have played a complicated song and dance with radars, but rather flown right through them in the hopes of triggering a response. And once it would be clear to them that SIO was their destination, ZS/F would not have complied willinglybut rather would have resorted to any extreme means necessary to avert such. Of that I am 100pct convinced.
In Peter Lee MH370: By Accident or Design >>there is a highly interesting MH370 route map proposed early on by a NOAA scientist.
He proposed Z’s goal was to hide the wreck in the undersea mountains by flying down NinetyEast Ridge and cutting over to finally lose the plane in the Broken Ridge Range.
So that’s the 7th arc at -33 degrees is the suggested spot, and that lines up well with other recent “go north” theories.
And…what are the chances of finding MH370 there? Following the NOAA staffer logic, looks to me like ATSB picked a relatively easy zone for the current search?
@DennisW 🙂 …seems some are knee deep in the “earth is flat” darkness….
@DennisW – do we have to rescue from the hole again.
As a CTO with that gps company, you should have seen the problem with the whole data scenario instead of embracing its wholly ..
@DennisW
My use of facetious was synonymic of tongue and cheek said with a playful nature, I guess it did not translate that way. @all
There is no version of this story yet that is substantiated enough. For that reason, it makes sense IMO to explore areas that have not received a lot of attention or possibly question information in other areas that have. My gut tells me Z did not do it but there is a good chance I am wrong. Encouraging research and looking for answers regarding the cargo is not because I constructed a story to fit, only suggesting it merits a closer look. I think it is premature from the Z did it camp; to immediately challenge the validity of another culprit if not immediately supported by a fabricated scenario. It gives the impression the Z did it theory is ironclad, when actually, it has very weak substance. Having said that, I will go to work on building a factual base so we can begin to determine if this is viable
@Paul Smithson
“But, @rtdf4, is it not the case that “military” radar is routinely piped in to ATC serving as long range coverage, i.e. dual use?”
No, it is the other way around. ATC data are fed to the comtrol and command centers, and are available to the air defence. Think about secrecy and protecting of information and capabilities. You can’t get a guy with a secret clearance on every ATC scope.
That is also the reason that ATC was blind after the transponders were switched off at that range. The primary ATC radars used close to airports have only a range up to 60 NM.
Re possible cargo
When it comes to cargo being the possible reason for hijacking posters think in gold and diamonds. Such valuables have no genuine value and are available all over the world , can be aquired legally and illegally without committing mass murder.
I would tend to genuine information, only available once, not buyable on the normal or black market, and for the owner and the culprit of immense value. Such information might even come only with a person in the know, with the inventor who would hold the ultimate key to use this information.
To snatch such cargo on ground might be difficult, as the information about such a cargo might be limited, the only known could be that it will be on board this aircraft, that this flight is the only possibility to snatch this information.
Such cargo would be easy to handle once identified, as we are talking anout a box of papers, some electronic storage device, a prototype arrangement of a device and maybe a person, not tons of cargo.
The goal could be to prevent this information to reach the intended recipient and, if possible to use it for own purposes. It would be most important that the word does not spread who was behind such a crime.
The task of the crime could have been fullfilled by just destroying the aircraft and the cargo in an accident like scheme at a remote location together, or to remove it prior destroying the aircraft. Small cargo could be air dropped, f.e prior FMT in the region of the Andamans.
Dennis will noww have his field day. I expect incoming.
Leave the who-did-it, and use your expertise on where the plane and those people are. The average Joe doesn’t get it that MH370 never touched the SiO and it didn’t land. All knowledge and experience have been used and nothing has been found. Just random pieces 1 at a time popping up with huge spaces between them. Who honestly thinks those people sits buckled up still in the aeroplane chairs in the deepest of the SiO, and nothing floated up after it allegededly crashed face first?
@All
Latest from B. Baily
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/with-so-many-questions-the-search-for-mh370-must-go-on/news-story/77dc45f9da3fad869e5619a2c70d3da9
Most repeat. He does say that Z took on enough fuel for
an extra 2.5 hrs. I have not seen it mentioned anywhere.
Cheers Tom L
Australian article was subrsciption. Here it is;
In a couple of months the longest and most expensive search in aviation history will come to a close. We can hope that the wreckage of MH370 will be found in the southern Indian Ocean in the remaining weeks as the weather and calmer seas allow for the completion of a search area based on the theory that the pilot was unresponsive when the plane hit the water.
Has the search been conducted in the wrong area? Lack of evidence to support a “rogue pilot” theory, which could change the search area, needs confirmation from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder.
However, there are some clues for the detectives among us:
1. Why did the MH370 captain put on so much fuel for departure from Kuala Lumpur? Malaysian Airlines was notorious for arriving at Heathrow with about 10 minutes of fuel remaining. The weather in MH370’s intended destination of Beijing was fine, meaning he would have landed in China with approximately 2½ hours of fuel remaining.
2. Flight deck procedures for airline crew in the event of an emergency mandate an immediate “mayday” call and a transponder to be activated.
This did not happen.
3. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has suggested the crew may have been unresponsive because of a “lack of oxygen”. However, crew are trained to don their oxygen masks in seconds and the length of consciousness at 35,000 feet is 30-60 seconds.
4. The subsequent track flown to north of Sumatra, after the turnback on the route to Beijing, suggests pilot control — as stated by the head of the world’s largest international airline, which has more than 150 Boeing 777s. He also stated pilots should not be able to turn off transponders in flight.
5. The ATSB ignored data — revealed to me well over two years ago — sourced from deleted information from the MH370 captain’s home computer that showed he had plotted a course to the southern Indian Ocean.
6. The continuing explanation of the ATSB that it is responsible only for the search, and not the investigation, must be challenged. If a “rogue pilot” was involved, it may render the search area invalid.
This “head in the sand” attitude by the ATSB has not enhanced its professional reputation. It must be awful for the families of the deceased not to know where the bodies of their loved ones are.
The search must go on.
Question relative to recent developments here:
Has it been discussed (I believe it has) whether the aircraft could have stayed in the air from FMT until the end with a cargo door or a cabin door missing?
Could a scenario like that account for conditions affecting fuel, temperature in aircraft, etc. which in their turn would affect the data, the arcs and hence the place of impact?
Since Jeff in his article is pointing us towards “the other Cocos Islands”, it is only natural to envision a Chinese intelligence officer programming the autopilot before jumping out, hopefully with a parachute, with or without a part of the cargo near the Cocos Islands. A Chinese sub or other vessel could, I assume, have picked him up also at a much later point along the way to the south (but with less effect on the data we have).
Were there any passengers with parachuting practise onboard, preferrably with late ticket purchases? Was there knowingly any passengers with late bookings that could merit an extra check?
@Tom Lindsay
“Most repeat. He does say that Z took on enough fuel for an extra 2.5 hrs. I have not seen it mentioned anywhere.”
Actually he said something different.
“The weather in MH370’s intended destination of Beijing was fine, meaning he would have landed in China with approximately 2½ hours of fuel remaining.”
Extra fuel is the fuel added by the captain on his own discretion, but does not include the following regulatory requirements:
International Operations:
– Fly for 10 percent of trip air time at normal cruise altitude at a fuel flow for end of cruise weight at the speed for 99 percent maximum range.
– Exercise a missed approach and climbout at the destination airport; fly to an alternate airport 200 nautical miles distant.
– Hold for 30 minutes at alternate airport at 1500 feet altitude.
– Descend and land at alternate airport.
“Malaysian Airlines was notorious for arriving at Heathrow with about 10 minutes of fuel remaining.”
This would be, as you can see from the above requirements, completely against any regulation.
Subtract the required fuel for holding and alternate from the calculated remaining fuel of 2.500kg and you will get the extra fuel the captain choose to carry along. You never know how rhe weather would be at a destination some hours after you habe commenced flight planning. An expierienced captain would use his judgement and add some extra fuel for weather deterioration, ATC hickups and other unplanned events on such a long distance flight.
@F4
Where does one hide a tree?
Getting rid of one or more or capturing one or more carriers of certain technical innovation.
If it was the cargo, disposal, rather than steeling on the ground, although on the ground would be easier but have left a smelly trail and possible whistleblowers. The mystery of the missing plane is the best forest in which to hide a tree.
@all
Why would there be a higher percentage per capita of suicidal pilots than in any other profession? This idea discredits some of the airline accidents that were attributed to suicidal pilots, it is just too convenient an out.
Note to the above:
Quotes around the Other Cocos Islands are mine (non-proper expression-quotes), not Jeff’s.
@Tom Lindsay. On fuel a comment by ‘Mick’ under the article;”The Captain ordered 49,100 kg of fuel; 37,200 kg of planned trip-fuel plus the mandatory reserves for a 46 minute diversion to his primary diversion airport, Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport, and a 1 hour 45 minutes diversion to his secondary diversion airport, Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport.
Byron Bailey’s response was that with the weather fine at the destination and primary diversion, fuel for a secondary diversion was not required.
Mick referred him to FI, which indicates the weather was not fine, concluding, “There was nothing out of the ordinary with MH370’s fuel load.”
I believe Mick.
@RetiredF4
@David
Thanks for the clarification guys.
I thought 10 min leeway was a bit thin to say the least!
Cheers Tom L
@Ed, Thank you for posting the full article. Search and investigation go hand in glove. ATSB should have held themselves to a higher standard. Sometimes it’s asked for to be politically incorrect and not dance to someone’s trouser legs (Malaysia) blindly. As a result they dug a hole for so deep, they couldn’t back-track their poorly made decisions, i.e. drafting a wrong search area. From the start Malaysia systematically lied through their teeth without blinking or blushing and thinking they could out-smart the general public. IMO an insult to the NOK who deserved to be taken serious. And 2/12 years on, they have still to reveal documents and information which they blatantly refuse to do. How a country so deceitfull and inept isn’t banned from the International Aviation stage as a consequence is beyond me.
@Inmarsat Youtube channel, their marketing videos on the channel belie not finding the plane. It would appear that they have everything covered. #creepymilitaryshitdressedascommercalsafetytechnology
The US and/or China probably knows where the plane is, they don’t want to play a technology disclosure card.
I don’t believe that the amount of technology being carried by the passengers was not trackable.
@keffertje
“ZS/F would have found a way to use the ELT or other means to alert the ground. They would not have played a complicated song and dance with radars, but rather flown right through them in the hopes of triggering a response. And once it would be clear to them that SIO was their destination, ZS/F would not have complied willinglybut rather would have resorted to any extreme means necessary to avert such. Of that I am 100pct convinced.”
I think this is wrong. There are few cases of hijackings reported from the cockpit in the early stages. Considering everything else that did go wrong that night, that would be the least surprising imo, as Malaysia seems ill-prepared to handle aircraft hijackings. It is also unusual for hijackers to deliberately complicate things and attract outside attention. The reason why transponders are turned off in that case normally is to avoid just that. There is also no evidence that any pilot was alive after the FMT. On the contrary, all evidence so far points to no pilot inputs during that stage of the flight. It is not uncommom at all that hijackers kill the pilots at some point.
Cont.:
….Properly Great and Little Coco Island, north of (Indian) Andaman Islands, belonging to Myanmar but leased by China: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coco_Islands
@Nederland, Thank you:) You could very well be right of course. There are examples of hijackers being overpowered by crew and pilots too. So it’s not inconceivable. Also you are assuming potential hijackers were smart and well informed on Malaysian and Indonesians multiple radars. This may/may not have been the case. Cockpits are not accesible the way they used to be giving pilots time to sound the alarm. My point was more, people don’t sit back and do nothing when they are facing potential death. Maybe as you say, noone was alive at FMT. Idk that.
@keffertje
I think then as now the only way into the cockpit is via the cabin crew. It seems cabin crew in Malaysia are less concerned about hijackings than in the US or Europe. There was this tabloid report that flight attendants were not surprised the co-pilot had admitted young women into the cockpit on a different flight.
I also think it is counter-intuitive that the pilot reiterated cruising altitude to ATC for no apparent reason and later failed to confirm Vietnam radio frequency, if his plan was to avert suspicion from himself (which is the whole reasoning of the suicide in nowhere’s land scenario). This may as well have been the only way left to communicate something happenend. Hijackers often try to force their way into the cockpit once the plane reached crusing altitude.
Besides personal vendetta, terrorism isn’t off the table. There have been recent reports that explosive traces have been found on MS804 debris, but no claims of responsibility thus far.
Nine months ago, in an insightful piece, Byron Bailey, summarised the suicide theory succinctly.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-case-for-pilot-zaharie-ahmad-shahs-hijack-of-flight-mh370/newsstory/955ed1c640c91e85a9f660fdf7ed5248
What @Rob and @DennisW say here was encapsulated brilluantly in that paywalled article. In fact Bailey’s description of the AP was spot on. I have come around to the view that it was pilot suicide because the circumstantial evidence apparently points to that. The only instance I differ from @Rob and @DennisW and Bailey, is the flight termination because I don’t think Z had a Sully in him to pull off that feat. It was more of letting the plane drop on fuel exhaustion. While cargo is an interesting angle to look at, I would rather think it has more to do with its constituents rather than anyone being after it for China had better means of getting it to Beijing than using a commercial flight. Cargo, specifically, Lithium batteries have a significant role in a ghost flight scenario. That could explain why the Malays are silent about it due to insurance repercussions. But having said that a cargo induced flight degenerating into a ghost flight is a very remote possibility. a long long shot.
It’s highly likely suicide alright but something personal minus the dramatics of a ditching or political martyrdom.
@GortoZ
No offence taken,dude. Appreciate the clarification though:D
@Nederland
Probably alive – he had to fly to the undersea mountains to lose the plane forever
@Johann
Rapid depressurization gives a low temp as low as zero F (-18 C) by calc but I assume the surroundings/seats etc will heat up the air quickly after that.
@Gloria
I also would not be surprised if somebody knows the plane crashed nor would I be surprised if culprit is known. The USA has been encouraging MY to tell the truth since the early days of the crash starting with Obama’s press secretary Jay Carney. Razak quite definitively said all passengers dead by 24-March.
Reading between the lines it seems to me the truth that the USA is trying to get MY to say is the likely pilot involvement. That’s partly why I don’t have too much energy to consider other culprits if I think the intelligence community knows the answer. Keep in mind MY has much info held secret we do not have, all the book authors say that.
@TBill
“Rapid depressurization gives a low temp as low as zero F (-18 C) by calc but I assume the surroundings/seats etc will heat up the air quickly after that.”
That seems to be the fatal flaw of the whole construction as it would haven taken two hours at the very least to render unconscious everyone in the cabin (expected duration per oxygen bottle at around FL300 just under two hours, but there were more bottles than cabin crew members).
@Nederland, I thought it was a lot less than that. I read crew have 60m of oxygen and passengers 20 m tops. Pilots have much more, around 3 hours. Temperatures at FL350 would have been around -40C – 45C. Being rendered unconscious is a lot faster than 2 hours.
@keffertje
According to the FI (App. 1.6E, p. 25) portable oxygen bottles had 11 cubic feet (311 litres, 301 is probably a typo). 3 l/hr is probably fine, so that’s 104 minutes, but the Helios accident report says they last slightly longer than that. There were 15 bottles for 10 flight attendants.
@Nedeerland
Ed Baker’s blog talks about how cold it must have been in the depressure scenario…I assume though the pilot could bring some heat or cold air in if he wanted to. According to Goodnight Malaysian 370, he suggests the cabin was warm to start the flight, which would have had the benefit of keeping things warmer for the depressure step.
@TBill
Passengers on the Helios Flight were still alive after more than two hours of oxygen deprivation, although probably in an irreversible coma. I have no idea for how long that state is reversible, that may heavily depend on individual conditions. But I think it’s safe to say the cabin would need to be depressurised for several hours to make sure no one recovers, especially since at least some flight attendants may well have been able to use two bottles in a row.
I’d say there is no way not to prevent hypothermia in either cockpit or cabin during that time.
here is another “Coco” island in the IO region.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Île_aux_Cocos#
From the new Bailey piece:
“4) The subsequent track flown to north of Sumatra, after the turnback on the route to Beijing, suggests pilot control — as stated by the head of the world’s largest international airline, which has more than 150 Boeing 777s. He also stated pilots should not be able to turn off transponders in flight.”
Presumably a reference to Emirates boss Tim Clark. If Bailey considers Clark’s off-the-cuff musings as supportive evidence, then there’s really no reason to pay attention to the whole article.
@buyerninety
If that was the devil advocating that load of irrelevant tosh, then Hell won’t be such an internal place to look forward to after all!
What on earth did you think I was referring to when I mentioned the cone of silence above Penang? Well for your information I meant the so called cone of silence or radar blind area immediately above the ground transmitter, not some science fiction type phenomenon. Frankly, I despair (well, almost) some times.
The aircraft carefully followed the Thai/Malay FIR boundary between ABTOK and the approach to Penang south coast. If it was also an air route (which I very much doubt – can you imagine either Country agreeing to an air route that passes along the boarder between them? Simply laughable!
And what was that drivel about the SDU and ELMS? The only way to guarantee the SDU disengaged for the first hour of detour, is to isolate the LH AC bus.
I’m sure it was all meant tongue in cheek, and that’s the way it was received. No hard feelings from this side of the chamber.
Re passenger oxygen:
TUC of usefull consciousness at 37.000′ is about 18 sec.
Passenger masks are of the rebreather type afaik good over prolonged time for cabin altitudes below 25.000 feet. Above 25.000′ it is a matter of time and personal constitution until disfunctions start. At 40.000′ cabin altitude and above they are of not much use, pressure breathing is necessary.
In all cases with cabin altitude above 10.000 feet altitude sickness can be expected.
If the plan was to depressurise the aircraft after the diversion, then why descend to around 30.000 ft? At that altitude, the portable oxygen bottles for cabin crew would only have lasted longer, and presumably the cabin crew are the ones to give a hard time to anyone whose intentions would have been quite obvius at that time.
RetiredF4 – Would fissionable material meet your definition of valuable cargo? This would be very difficult to obtain anywhere including the black market, and not very much (weight wise) would be a concern.
In spite of this, I’m still with DennisW on ZS being responsible and also agree that the final outcome was not what he had intended. I’m just not sure about the secret negotiations and/or what went wrong just that the plans started changing around 18:25.
@Nederland
Do we good data on Alt vs. Time? I know some of the experts feel the depressure started at IGARI and they had enough time at altitude.
Believe DennisW feels maybe they did not depressurize at all, because he supposes safe return of aircraft was intended based on political demands.
Why does the one MH370 book say cabin was warm? Does ACARS give us plane inside temps? Or is that just standard to make passengers sleep on red eyes?
”Because this respected man who went crazy one day and killed hundreds of people and himself, placed vast importance in the plane never being found, and that’s it”
Alot of respected people go berserk one day and commit crimes. Doesn’t meany any $it.
Fact is the plane went offline at a very suspicious location (ATC handover).
Z was responsible for the safety of the aircraft and well being of its passengers. So ofcourse he is nr.1 suspect.
Cargo scenario hijacking are for books and movies.
PS- wonder if Cabin depressure make a contrail cloud?
@JeffW
In your 6-Sept article, look how they seem to be avoiding the undersea mountain regions, exactly where some people feel was the intended burial spot. They just have to go a little more north but I assume it is extremely difficult terrain. I feel like we should engage the NOAA guy in Peter Lee’s book to see if his input could help, now that we are in the reassessment of search zone phase.
http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/36/768×497/gallery-1473259136-pm-seabed-search-area.jpg
@Nederland
My feeling is he probably knew he would be number one suspect, but once he was safely airborne and on his way, he wouldn’t have worried. Could he have confirmed his cruise altitude twice, because he couldn’t resist dropping the slightest hint? The plane was about to disappear (or so he planned) just past IGARI when he was fully established in the cruise, the most likely time a bomb with an altitude fuse would go off. I suggested he wanted it to look like a terrorist bomb, to put off the military looking for a renegade plane. Possible, don’t you think?
@TBill
I think, yes, the ATSB is really confident (in response to Bailey) that MH370 gradually descended to around FL300 directly after diverting because of changes in speed. That is also supported by civilian radar altitude data (per FI).
Also keep in mind that it will take some minutes for depressurisation to take effect, i.e. masks drop down (at the equivalent of 13.500 feet), and further until cabin pressure approximates actual altitude. At that time, MH370 was probably around FL300 per ATSB.
I don’t know that book but as it was written before the FI it surely is conjecture/fiction only.
Another question is why the hijacker(s) wanted to depressurise the cabin if all they could have achieved is to alert the cabin crew of their intention to kill everyone on board, while still giving them enough time to come up with a plan to stop the hijacker(s).