Started By
Message
re: Malaysian Airlines lost contact with a plane carrying 239 people
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:57 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 3/8/14 at 11:57 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Yeah, I remember that one. It was featured on an episode of Gone in Seconds. Horrifyingly scary.
Yea, as someone who flies fairly often, I have no desire to watch that shite.
quote:
The 777 is so advanced that I thought it might have its wing and rudder controls tied into the electrical system.
I'm not sure of all of the specifications. It's the most technologically advanced and safest airliner on the market that I'm aware of.
2
Posted on 3/9/14 at 12:00 am to Mizzeaux
Kentucker thanks for the link.
No but after losing contact as soon as they entered Vietnamese airspace they did answer the other commercial pilot who was contacting them on behalf of ATC.
Air France's 447 is the only other time a modern flight that has just gone missing like this and they were at least 4 hrs in and crashed in MUCH deeper waters. They flew into a thunderstorm but with the Malaysian flight the weather was clear. With AF447 there were both autopilot issues and pilot issues according to France's final analysis and when they hit the storm things froze over. Protocol was changed because co-pilots did nothing to correct for the pilots error -- just kept their mouths shut about what he was doing. While flightspeed indicators were on the fritz and autopilot disengaged itself, flight crew ignored repeated warnings if we are to believe the post-crash analysis that the plane sounded several warnings including stall warnings. The plane was said to have remained responsive to commands up til the point of impact.
The pilot-friendly reading of the info available is more along the lines of the autopilot disengaged and airspeed gauges didn't work ergo the stall happened.
And FWIW, Airbus like Boeing has good reason to want to blame pilots over their planes whether it's true or not. These are major commercial and military contractors and billions are staked just on their reputation. Boeing isn't a saint either (they got caught faking portions of military required testing in the 90s because what the military requires is onerous, time consuming, and expensive - many, many, tests required) and I'm sure Airbus is just as bad on that count.
quote:
ack of a mayday or something isn't a big deal and really isn't unusual. In an emergency you do three things: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, in that order.
You don't take attention away from trying to gain control of the aircraft to key the mic and tell ATC what's going on.
No but after losing contact as soon as they entered Vietnamese airspace they did answer the other commercial pilot who was contacting them on behalf of ATC.
Air France's 447 is the only other time a modern flight that has just gone missing like this and they were at least 4 hrs in and crashed in MUCH deeper waters. They flew into a thunderstorm but with the Malaysian flight the weather was clear. With AF447 there were both autopilot issues and pilot issues according to France's final analysis and when they hit the storm things froze over. Protocol was changed because co-pilots did nothing to correct for the pilots error -- just kept their mouths shut about what he was doing. While flightspeed indicators were on the fritz and autopilot disengaged itself, flight crew ignored repeated warnings if we are to believe the post-crash analysis that the plane sounded several warnings including stall warnings. The plane was said to have remained responsive to commands up til the point of impact.
The pilot-friendly reading of the info available is more along the lines of the autopilot disengaged and airspeed gauges didn't work ergo the stall happened.
And FWIW, Airbus like Boeing has good reason to want to blame pilots over their planes whether it's true or not. These are major commercial and military contractors and billions are staked just on their reputation. Boeing isn't a saint either (they got caught faking portions of military required testing in the 90s because what the military requires is onerous, time consuming, and expensive - many, many, tests required) and I'm sure Airbus is just as bad on that count.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 12:03 am
Posted on 3/9/14 at 12:04 am to CatFan81
The only incident Boeing has had to deal with to date concerned the software on, coincidentally, another Malaysian 777 some years back. The plane was flying at 39,000 feet on autopilot and suddenly decided to go higher on its own. By the time the pilots turned off the auto and resumed manual control, the plane had quickly climbed to 42,000 feet. Imagine if it had decided to lower its altitude.
A software fix was quickly made on every 777 world wide and there were no more incidents.
A software fix was quickly made on every 777 world wide and there were no more incidents.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 12:08 am
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:17 am to Prof
I've flown ok both Boeing and Airbus and I honestly have never noticed a huge difference. Some people love to talk about the superiority of Boeing though.
IMO one is really no better than the other. Both are extremely reliable companies.
IMO one is really no better than the other. Both are extremely reliable companies.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 2:42 am
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:45 am to CatFan81
I don't either but both really want to maintain their images and enjoy making money too. Image for them is often difference between getting the contract and not. But they're both good at building very solid planes. It's just no one wants to accept failure in planes does happen or treat those failures the way we'd overlook similar failures in cars and say 'eh what can you do - can't be perfect all the time.'
Don't get me wrong I don't want them being willy-nilly either. I just think we're so worried about air travel we don't want to accept very normal and understandable design issues that get tweaked yearly - the way the same model car goes through tweaks every year to fix prior bugs/flaws.
Boeing and Airbus are well aware of that and as such have an interest to not bother talking about flaws and tweaks the way other industries do.
Don't get me wrong I don't want them being willy-nilly either. I just think we're so worried about air travel we don't want to accept very normal and understandable design issues that get tweaked yearly - the way the same model car goes through tweaks every year to fix prior bugs/flaws.
Boeing and Airbus are well aware of that and as such have an interest to not bother talking about flaws and tweaks the way other industries do.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 4:08 am to Mizzeaux
Along with spotty screening at best shite what a mess. Every pilot should be an FFDO
Posted on 3/9/14 at 9:18 am to Kentucker
quote:
The plane was flying at 39,000 feet on autopilot and suddenly decided to go higher on its own. By the time the pilots turned off the auto and resumed manual control, the plane had quickly climbed to 42,000 feet. Imagine if it had decided to lower its altitude.
Then the plane would have been at 36,000 feet.
Which is why autopilot is only used at cruising altitudes.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 10:53 am to CatFan81
I have a flight in the morning.
Should not have read this thread. Should not have read this thread...
Should not have read this thread. Should not have read this thread...
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:37 am to ehidal1
I saw where an American Technology company, Freescale, lost 20 people on that flight.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 12:20 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
I saw where an American Technology company, Freescale, lost 20 people on that flight.
They were all foreign employees.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 2:21 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Then the plane would have been at 36,000 feet. Which is why autopilot is only used at cruising altitudes.
Suddenly climbing 3,000' and plunging 3,000' would give very different sensations, however. A pilot in his seat could gain quicker control of a surge upward than one who wasn't buckled in and found himself suddenly floating about the cockpit in a plunge. I would hope a rule of flying huge jets is that at least one pilot is strapped in at all times.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:01 am to Kentucker
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:02 am to Dawggy_Style
I said it earlier and I'll say it again, it looks like we have a real life Lost situation on our hands
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:05 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
looks like we have a real life Lost situation on our hands
I never watched Lost, but I don't recall it taking place underwater with a deceased cast.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:56 am to Dawggy_Style
quote:
I never watched Lost, but I don't recall it taking place underwater with a deceased cast.
Just the episodes at the looking glass station.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 8:08 am to Dawggy_Style
quote:
with a deceased cast.
Didn't make it to the last episode?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:08 am to Dawggy_Style
quote:
I never watched Lost, but I don't recall it taking place underwater with a deceased cast.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:27 pm to WestCoastAg
The Malaysian military are now saying the plane did a turn back and that they tracked it flying low over Malaysia and into the Malacca Strait. They then lost contact with it. I wonder why they sat on this info while 10 nations were conducting a very expensive search in the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea?
Could they have been hijacked? The mystery deepens.
Could they have been hijacked? The mystery deepens.
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:33 pm to Kentucker
So someone supposedly turned off the transponder and got low after changing direction?
Wonder if it was shot down and the responsible party isn't saying anything to avoid some sort of backlash.
Wonder if it was shot down and the responsible party isn't saying anything to avoid some sort of backlash.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:37 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
So someone supposedly turned off the transponder and got low after changing direction? Wonder if it was shot down and the responsible party isn't saying anything to avoid some sort of backlash.
You'd have to think the Malaysian military are acting mighty suspiciously. Especially if they've known this from the beginning. I'm sure they would be afraid of how China would react.
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News