Back to Squawk list
  • 78

Update: New MH-370 debris identified

提交时间:
 
On Mar 21st 2016, about 13:30L, local resident Neels Kruger in South Africa found a piece of debris (photos see below), near Klein Brak River/Mossel Bay, about 20nm west of George and about 180nm east of Cape Town (South Africa), almost as far south as Africa's most southern point Cape Agulhas (avherald.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


pilot62
"It Looks" and "Possibly" sound and are speculative, and this isn't considered "trolling" as in people who troll for a fight or discount others "opinions" or continual complaining.
bbabis
bbabis 5
Thanks Scott. I see you looked up linbb's record also.
iknarf
iknarf 2
Reading part of the 'Update' and remembering the time and known circumstances when MH-370 disappeared like it did - I simply cannot avoid thinking if this was not an earlier suicide with innocent people becoming murdered like the one crash of German Wings just a year ago.
skuttlerats
Jeffrey Babey 1
It would sure be nice to know what happened for the sake of the families. Those poor family members out there left speculating what happened to their loved ones. So very sad, closure for them would be helpful.
bbabis
bbabis -4
Great site! It puts the known information in one place. It looks more like a fire, most likely associated with the large shipment of lithium ion batteries, disabled avionics systems and killed or disabled the crew and passengers very quickly. The ghost plane then was able to maintain flight, possibly shedding parts, until finally obliterating itself into the ocean. As with SA111, the largest parts to be found will be engine cores and main gear trucks.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
None of the information known to be true supports your speculation. More importantly, none of those with access to all of the information and expertise have suggested what you say could be true. Look to ValuJet's fire to see what really happens in a cargo hold fire. No crew incompacitation before impact. Emergency declared. Flight ended very, very quickly. No secondary radar returns showing a change in flight direction. No satellite handshakes that go on for hours. No total radio silence by members of crew coincidentally right after controller handoff.

As authorities have said, it is irresponsible to speculate about what actually happened before information showing what actually happened is found.

It is much easier to speculate irresponsibly when anonymous. I encourage you to come from behind the cloud of anonymity into the open. Such actions always encourage persons to post more responsibly.
bbabis
bbabis 1
Dan, The b stands for Bill and there is no anonymity sought. FA is a site where you are allowed to speculate. Feel free to add your two cents, just don't step on other's. I have worked with the NTSB in two investigations but am far from an expert and have never claimed to be one. One thing I do know, is that no two accidents are ever alike even with the same cause. Two old DC-9s may have a fire propagate differently much less a DC-9 and a B-777. A good suppression system may have saved the aircraft as far as flight capability but a tremendous amount of smoke would have still been generated. Ultimately all electrical systems were lost except the final self generating ones on the engines. Some of the systems lost could not be shutdown from the cockpit. Something interrupted them. Several witnesses that evening saw what they believed was an aircraft trailing smoke. The radio silence may not have been intentional. The initial left turn toward land about that time would be an expected reaction to an emergency. After that, was a conscious, semi-conscious, or no pilot flying the aircraft? Who knows? Not me, but I can speculate. I have seen what smoke will do in a cockpit. Even with mask and goggles or a hood, you may not be able to see one inch in front of your eyeballs. Maybe one day a piece will be found that shows soot or should show soot if a fire happened. Even better, the CVR or FDR could be recovered and contain the answers to the big questions. Until then, all on here are welcome to state their case. Stay safe out there.
tongo
Dan Grelinger -4
Bill,

How do you make that post without appearing hypocritical?

Didn't you just step all over my post while telling me not to step on yours? If, as you say, all are welcome to state their case, can't I state my case as well? Or is it that your rule is only those who agree with you can state their cases?

I criticize, and I welcome your criticism. I challenge you to do the same. To criticize me for criticizing you can't be done without hypocrisy.

Dan
bbabis
bbabis 3
I don't think anyone on here should criticize another poster Dan, and I am sorry you took it as such. It was not intended. I was simply backing up my thought process so it may be better understood.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Reasonably, how could the pilots have been killed so quickly as to not make a radio call? For your theory to be reasonable, you have to provide reasonable scenarios to support the theory.
bbabis
bbabis 0
There is the misunderstanding. I think radio failure may have lead to the lack of calls even if the pilots had tried. Other systems went dead about the same time. A nightmare scenario may have been developing quickly. The plane was turned toward land and possible alternates but a crew without vision, and communication has much to overcome. In their attempts to fight the problem anything could have been turned off or the plane turned in any direction until they were finally overcome.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
The problem with that hypothesis is that the aircraft flew for 7 hours after the "nightmare scenario" that you suggest may have happened. When you have a nightmare scenario that disables ALL communications (except for the one thing the pilots would not be able to turn off from the cockpit) in less than two minutes, it would have to be certainly a catastrophe of wide and fast moving impact. To then suggest the plane could fly under control for 7 additional hours until all fuel was exhausted is unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to suggest that the airplane would fly the course that it did in the scenario where the pilots are incompacitated. There is no reasonable way the plane would do that on its own.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
I think you both make great points. I ask myself, what allows an aircraft to remain airborne but incapacitate everyone, crew included for such a long time, precluding any radio, satellite or air to air, air to ground communication? As a side note, I enjoy the comments by most, however, there tends to be more and more wild speculation from " home sim drivers" than by pro pilots that have actually been there, done that. Not to disparage anybody, but you can tell by reading some remarks by the publc the sense of
inexperience.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

TWA55
TWA55 0
My first thought at the time of the accident was explosive decompression in cockpit, forward windshield for example, I hope it is solved someday.
pilot62
Scott Campbell -4
why would I do that ? who cares ? Move along the gig is up your the Troll Champ

登录

还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!
本网站使用cookie。您使用并继续浏览本网站,即表示您接受这一点。
退出
您知道FlightAware航班跟踪是由广告支持吗?
通过允许展示来自FlightAware.com的广告,您可以帮助我们使FlightAware保持免费。我们努力使我们的广告保持相关性,同时不显突兀,以创造一流的体验。在FlightAware上将广告加入白名单快捷而简单,或者请您考虑选择我们的高级帐户.
退出