The missing 777 Malaysian plane

[roadfix]

I agree that the satellite images are not parts from the plane.

 

[roadfix]

He'll be the first to spot it...

 

[Roll_Bones]

They have said those things they saw floating could not be anything from the plane. Anything that big from a plane would not be buoyant. The only things that would float would be much smaller like seat cushions.

The best theory I have heard so far is that there was a fire in the cockpit. One procedure in that situation is to shut down everything. They turn everything off just so that is why the transponder was turned off. The 90 degree turn was due to the pilots turning towards the closest airstrip they could use for an emergency landing. The fire quickly grew and the pilots passed out or were overcome by the flames and the plane went into the ocean.
This is just one possible theory. I am sure I did not get all the details of it spot on. This theory came from another pilot so I am sure I missed some of the other details, but this very simple theory seemed to make a lot of sense to me. A lot more so than a black hole at least.
My personal view is that the plane is at the bottom of the ocean. I do not think it is terrorists or any other elaborate theory.

If there was a fire, and they lost the electronics, the plane would have crashed right then. This plane cannot fly without power. A loss of the electrical/electronics would be the disaster in itself.
The plane supposedly flew on for several hours. If this is the case, there had to be a functional electronic system. Speculating on my part GB.

Like you, I have to go with the obvious. They are all dead and the plane resides on the bottom of the ocean. Hoping to find these poor souls is not going to happen (I wish I believed in miracles).

 

[GB]

If there was a fire, and they lost the electronics, the plane would have crashed right then. This plane cannot fly without power.

That theory came from a certified pilot. He said it is standard operating procedure to throw all the breakers when there is a fire so I must assume that the plane can fly that way and would not just crash. However the other part of his theory was that the pilots were quickly overcome by the fire/smoke/heat whatever, so that it flew for hours is kind of a wrench in that idea.

 

[GotGarlic]

That theory came from a certified pilot. He said it is standard operating procedure to throw all the breakers when there is a fire so I must assume that the plane can fly that way and would not just crash. However the other part of his theory was that the pilots were quickly overcome by the fire/smoke/heat whatever, so that it flew for hours is kind of a wrench in that idea.

Here's an excerpt from the link I posted:

Other pilots aren't convinced, though. In an interview with Business Insider, Michael G. Fortune, a retired pilot who now works as an aviation consultant and expert witness, said pilots preparing to change destination "would have communicated their emergency and intentions to turn around, as well as ask for assistance and direct routing to a suitable airport from the air traffic controllers very quickly."

Goodfellow [author of the original theory] also wrote: "in the case of fire the first response [is] to pull all the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one."

Fortune, who flew 777-200ERs like the one involved here, said pilots follow a specific procedure when there's smoke or fire in the cabin. He didn't buy into the idea that the transponders would have been turned off in an attempt to deal with the problem. "The checklist I utilized for smoke and fumes in the B-777-200ER does not specifically address the transponder being turned off," he said.

Steve Abdu, a 777 captain for a major carrier, echoed Fortune's point that there's a clear checklist to follow in this kind of situation. And, he pointed out, it's unlikely smoke would have knocked the pilots unconscious or killed them — because they have oxygen masks.

Each pilot has a quick-donning mask, and putting it on is step one on the fire checklist. It covers the full face, even if the pilot wears glasses, and can be put on in about two seconds. "These masks are quite excellent at protecting a pilot from smoke and fumes," Fortune said.

There's a training video on the page that shows how the mask works.

And here's a comprehensive Q&A: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/world/asia/missing-plane-q-and-a/

 

[GB]

I don't dispute that other pilots have said that scenario is unlikely. There is at least one living pilot who has said it is a valid theory thought so if one thinks it is valid then it is not out of the realm of possibility that they pilots on this flight would have handled it the same way this one pilot would have.

As to the masks, how do we know that if there was a fire in the cockpit that the masks were not affected?

I am not saying this is what I really think happened, but I do think something like this is much more likely then a black hole or a hijacking at this point.

 

[GotGarlic]

I don't dispute that other pilots have said that scenario is unlikely. There is at least one living pilot who has said it is a valid theory thought so if one thinks it is valid then it is not out of the realm of possibility that they pilots on this flight would have handled it the same way this one pilot would have.

As to the masks, how do we know that if there was a fire in the cockpit that the masks were not affected?

I am not saying this is what I really think happened, but I do think something like this is much more likely then a black hole or a hijacking at this point.

I certainly don't have a better theory Definitely not a black hole, and probably not a hijacking. I just wanted to point out that, while it makes sense to us, who have no direct knowledge of such things, people who are specifically trained in the subject have doubts. I do think that, unfortunately, the plane is likely at the bottom of the ocean and the families may never have answers to what happened to their loved ones. That's got to be hard to live with.

 

[cave76]

It's a rare occurrence to find a theory or scientific fact written by an 'expert' that isn't denied by other 'experts'.

Example:

" He [Johnson] spent years examining the studies of flat and round Earth theories and proposed evidence of a conspiracy against flat-Earth: "The idea of a spinning globe is only a conspiracy of error that Moses, Columbus, and FDR all fought…" His article was published in the magazine Science Digest, 1980. It goes on to state, "If it is a sphere, the surface of a large body of water must be curved. The Johnsons have checked the surfaces of Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea without detecting any curvature."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GotGarlic]

It's a rare occurrence to find a theory or scientific fact written by an 'expert' that isn't denied by other 'experts'.

Example:

" He [Johnson] spent years examining the studies of flat and round Earth theories and proposed evidence of a conspiracy against flat-Earth: "The idea of a spinning globe is only a conspiracy of error that Moses, Columbus, and FDR all fought…" His article was published in the magazine Science Digest, 1980. It goes on to state, "If it is a sphere, the surface of a large body of water must be curved. The Johnsons have checked the surfaces of Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea without detecting any curvature."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha ha ha! So funny. So why do we listen to them, quote them, etc.? No good reason, I guess. So I have to wonder why you bother asking these off-topic questions at all.

 

[Addie]

And to think I missed all this because anytime word of this plane starts to show up on my TV, I quickly change the channel. And I don't have to strain my brain thinking up theories.

 

[Mad Cook]

Or "The Front Fell Off"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-QNAwUdHUQ

In the UK when someone says something "fell off the back of a lorry" they mean that it was helped off by a less than honest truck driver - in other words "nicked", "pinched" or just plain stolen.

 

[GB]

It means the same in the US Mad Cook.

 

[Mad Cook]

Here's a few theories about the loss of contact with air traffic controllers:

1. It lost contact with the air traffic controllers because the equipment at the air controllers facility was old and faulty.

2. The air traffic controllers were busy posting selfies on Facebook

3. The controllers were drunk or stoned.

But the plane is still up there looking for some sober controllers who can land them safely---- in Roswell NM.

Re theory #1, it was said on the news a couple of days ago that the Malaysian air traffic equipment is new and state of the art

 

[Mad Cook]

The BBC news today said that the last report of sightings in the southern Indian Ocean was actually some days ago and wasn't announced until the reports had been looked into and checked (presumably to make sure the source was what it said it was and the reports were not a hoax),

 

[Mad Cook]

It means the same in the US Mad Cook.

Oops, sorry. Did I sound patronising? Slang doesn't always cross the ocean very well..

 

[GB]

Nope you didn't sound patronizing at all. Just as you didn't know it meant the same in the US, I had no idea it meant that in the UK. We have both learned something today

 

[cave76]

So why do we listen to them, quote them, etc.? No good reason, I guess. So I have to wonder why you bother asking these off-topic questions at all.

I listen to them, quote them because they're there, just like Mallory and Mt Everest.

I bother to ask off topic questions because that's how my mind works.

And here you are, too, asking questions about my questions.
Welcome.

 

[cave76]

Re theory #1, it was said on the news a couple of days ago that the Malaysian air traffic equipment is new and state of the art

Oh Oh! You know what happens when things are upgraded---- just like happened here at DC a few days ago. (But I was just making a joke about the equipment and other reasons---- perhaps I hadn't made that clear.)

 

[GotGarlic]

I bother to ask off topic questions because that's how my mind works.

My point is that this is a cooking forum but you seem to be more interested in non-cooking topics. And you like to provoke rather than discuss.

And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.

 

[cave76]

My point is that this is a cooking forum but you seem to be more interested in non-cooking topics. And you like to provoke rather than discuss.

And I think making jokes about the loss of the Malaysian plane is exceedingly insensitive.

Noted. I'm sorry you have that opinion of me.