Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,473
8,170
Somewhere
My theory, based on nothing more than speculation and seeing a **** load of movies, is the cabin was compromised and the hijackers had the pilot alter course. Maybe heading to try and accomplish a 9/11 like terrorist act. Pilot realizes or discovers their plan and ditches the plane in the ocean in order to save thousands of lives on the ground.

It seems like if something like that happened then the pilots should have been able to get some sort of message off to ATC.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395
It seems like if something like that happened then the pilots should have been able to get some sort of message off to ATC.

This is where PAN PAN, MayDay, and squawking 7700 come in. Those definitely get ATC's attention.

Another theory not mentioned: Imperial vs. Metric. We know that they had or was supposed to have 7.5 hours of fuel onboard. But when filling it, did they go by gallons, or litres?

In short, could we be dealing with another Air Canada 143 (read: Gimli Glider)? Lose run out of fuel, avionics goes out (if I remember right, the B777 uses EFIS), so they couldn't squawk 7500, 7700, or 7600? Find the closest suitable land, and try to hit it? Glide down to where they could possibly land/survive, and take their chances/hope for the best?


BL.
 
Last edited:

hallux

macrumors 68040
Apr 25, 2012
3,437
1,005
This is where PAN PAN, MayDay, and squawking 7700 come in. Those definitely get ATC's attention.

Another theory not mentioned: Imperial vs. Metric. We know that they had or was supposed to have 7.5 hours of fuel onboard. But when filling it, did they go by gallons, or litres?

In short, could we be dealing with another Air Canada 143 (read: Gimli Glider)? Lose run out of fuel, avionics goes out (if I remember right, the B777 uses EFIS), so they couldn't squawk 7500, 7700, or 7600? Find the closest suitable land, and try to hit it? Glide down to where they could possibly land/survive, and take their chances/hope for the best?


BL.

I would hope, or would like to think, that those putting in the fuel order and those pumping the fuel would be better than that. You would think those on the ground have turned around enough planes that they know how to put enough gas in and would be able to throw a red flag when the request seems a bit short for the destination. Also, I think they usually measure the fuel in pounds, not gallons, so that would eliminate that conversion issue.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395
I would hope, or would like to think, that those putting in the fuel order and those pumping the fuel would be better than that. You would think those on the ground have turned around enough planes that they know how to put enough gas in and would be able to throw a red flag when the request seems a bit short for the destination. Also, I think they usually measure the fuel in pounds, not gallons, so that would eliminate that conversion issue.

One would think, until ACA143 happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider#Refeuling
At the time of the incident, Canada was converting to the metric system. As part of this process, the new 767s being acquired by Air Canada were the first to be calibrated for metric units (litres and kilograms) instead of customary units (gallons and pounds). All other aircraft were still operating with Imperial units (gallons and pounds). For the trip to Edmonton, the pilot calculated a fuel requirement of 22,300 kilograms (49,200 lb). A dripstick check indicated that there were 7,682 litres (1,690 imp gal; 2,029 US gal) already in the tanks. To calculate how much more fuel had to be added, the crew needed to convert the quantity in the tanks to a weight, subtract that figure from 22,300 kg and convert the result back into a volume. In previous times, this task would have been completed by a flight engineer, but the 767 was the first of a new generation of airliners that flew only with a pilot and co-pilot, and without a flight engineer.

The volume of a kilogram of jet fuel varies with temperature. In this case, the weight of a litre (known as "specific gravity") was 0.803 kg, so the correct calculation was:

7682 L × 0.803 kg/L = 6169 kg
22300 kg − 6169 kg = 16131 kg
16131 kg ÷ (0.803 kg/L) = 20088 L of fuel to be transferred

Between the ground crew and pilots, they arrived at an incorrect conversion factor of 1.77, the weight of a litre of fuel in pounds. This was the conversion factor provided on the refueller's paperwork and which had always been used for the airline's imperial-calibrated fleet. Their calculation produced:

7682 L × 1.77 kg/L = 13597 kg
22300 kg − 13597 kg = 8703 kg
8703 kg ÷ (1.77 kg/L) = 4916 L of fuel to be transferred

Instead of 22,300 kg of fuel, they had 22,300 pounds on board — 10,100 kg, about half the amount required to reach their destination. Knowing the problems with the FQIS, Captain Pearson double-checked their calculations but was given the same incorrect conversion factor and inevitably came up with the same erroneous figures.

The Flight Management Computer (FMC) measures fuel consumption, allowing the crew to keep track of fuel burned as the flight progresses. It is normally updated automatically by the FQIS, but in the absence of this facility it can be updated manually. Believing he had 22,300 kg of fuel on board, this is the figure the captain entered.

Because the FMC would reset during the stopover in Ottawa, the captain had the fuel tanks measured again with the dipstick while there. In converting the quantity to kilograms, the same incorrect conversion factor was used, leading him to believe he now had 20,400 kg of fuel; in reality, he had less than half that amount.

Now, I would assume that Malaysia would be Metric, so that shouldn't have been a problem.. But it couldn't be ruled out as a possibility; far cry, but still possible.


BL.
 

yg17

macrumors Pentium
Aug 1, 2004
15,027
3,002
St. Louis, MO
Something I haven't seen - but are there any airports along their new route that they may have been trying to divert to for a mechanical issue?

It seems unlikely that they'd go that far off course to divert to an airport without contacting ATC or the destination airport, because it appears they were on this new course for awhile. Is it possible for a plane to completely lose all electrical power, rendering their radios, transponders, etc, useless? I'd think there's plenty of redundancy in place so there's no single point of failure, but I know nothing about airplanes.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,473
8,170
Somewhere
This is where PAN PAN, MayDay, and squawking 7700 come in. Those definitely get ATC's attention.

Another theory not mentioned: Imperial vs. Metric. We know that they had or was supposed to have 7.5 hours of fuel onboard. But when filling it, did they go by gallons, or litres?

In short, could we be dealing with another Air Canada 143 (read: Gimli Glider)? Lose run out of fuel, avionics goes out (if I remember right, the B777 uses EFIS), so they couldn't squawk 7500, 7700, or 7600? Find the closest suitable land, and try to hit it? Glide down to where they could possibly land/survive, and take their chances/hope for the best?


BL.

Even if they messed up and measured the amount of fuel in pounds instead of kilograms they should have had more than 40 minutes of fuel, at least I'm pretty sure I read that they lost contact about 40 minutes into the flight. So I highly doubt that would be the case.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395
Something I haven't seen - but are there any airports along their new route that they may have been trying to divert to for a mechanical issue?

It seems unlikely that they'd go that far off course to divert to an airport without contacting ATC or the destination airport, because it appears they were on this new course for awhile. Is it possible for a plane to completely lose all electrical power, rendering their radios, transponders, etc, useless? I'd think there's plenty of redundancy in place so there's no single point of failure, but I know nothing about airplanes.

Pedang, George Town, Singapore, and Phuket would all be in range, given the fuel they had onboard. Kuala Lumpur would also have been available, which if there truly a problem, they could have just returned there. But that would give pause to those that came on with the bunk passports, because they could have believed they were outed and panicked.

BL.
 

Gutwrench

Suspended
Jan 2, 2011
4,603
10,530
Quagmire, isn't the amount of fuel taken aboard determined by the flight crew based on the amount of weight (passengers, luggage, and cargo) and distance to the destination (and perhaps other factors like weather)?

Also does the 777 have a computerized warning system if the fuel is insufficient to reach a programmed destination?

As I recall several years ago the FAA(?) recommended/raised the average weight per passenger to use to calc the fuel needed because the old method underestimated passenger weight and contributed to a fuel shortage and a crash. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

Do you feel a fueling mistake is a reasonable suspect in this case?
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
6,870
2,292
Quagmire, isn't the amount of fuel taken aboard determined by the flight crew based on the amount of weight (passengers, luggage, and cargo) and distance to the destination (and perhaps other factors like weather)?

Also does the 777 have a computerized warning system if the fuel is insufficient to reach a programmed destination?

As I recall several years ago the FAA(?) recommended/raised the average weight per passenger to use to calc the fuel needed because the old method underestimated passenger weight and contributed to a fuel shortage and a crash. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

Do you feel a fueling mistake is a reasonable suspect in this case?

Yes the FMS will calculate the amount of fuel remaining at the destination and will show a negative number if there isn't enough fuel.

You're mixing up two different accidents. First there was the Gimli Glider which was a brand new 767 up in Canada. The 767 uses kg while everything else in Air Canada's fleet was still in lb. They applied the wrong conversion so that is how it was loaded with too little fuel. Plus the fuel gauges were INOP due to a broken computer.

Another accident( can't remember the airline/flight number) was a turboprop regional plane. Multiple items factored into this, but part of it was the fact the passengers and baggage were heavier than the FAA's at the time average weight to calculate the W&B. So while the pilots determined they were within limits, in reality they were overweight with the a rear CG being out of limits. So when they took off and retracted the gear( this further sent the CG rearward), the plane pitched up uncontrollably and stalled and crashed into a hangar. Now a maintenance issue played into it as well as shoddy maintenance procedures led to a cable being over tightened and the pilots did not have full elevator authority. It would not go down all the way like it was supposed to.

As for it leading to this accident highly doubt it. They would have communicated with ATC due to it. It would not have caused to them to lose comms, transponder, etc unless they were total idiots and ignored every warning the plane would have told them until it was too late and the engines flamed out due to lack of fuel. Even then there is the RAT that will come down and power some of the flight instruments and radios.
 
Last edited:

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395
Quagmire, isn't the amount of fuel taken aboard determined by the flight crew based on the amount of weight (passengers, luggage, and cargo) and distance to the destination (and perhaps other factors like weather)?

You are correct here.

Also does the 777 have a computerized warning system if the fuel is insufficient to reach a programmed destination?

Yes. That should be part of EFIS, especially in relation to what happened at Gimli.

As I recall several years ago the FAA(?) recommended/raised the average weight per passenger to use to calc the fuel needed because the old method underestimated passenger weight and contributed to a fuel shortage and a crash. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

Do you feel a fueling mistake is a reasonable suspect in this case?

Again, see Gimli.

It could be possible, which is why I mentioned it.

The bigger question is, does ACARS or ADS-B report it back to the company?

EDIT: another idea. What was that Air Transat incident where they lost power and glided to landing in the Azores? I can't remember the flight number off the top of my head.

BL.
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
6,870
2,292
EDIT: another idea. What was that Air Transat incident where they lost power and glided to landing in the Azores? I can't remember the flight number off the top of my head.

BL.

Again doubt it because they would have still had the RAT to power the essential systems which includes radios.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,473
8,170
Somewhere
EDIT: another idea. What was that Air Transat incident where they lost power and glided to landing in the Azores? I can't remember the flight number off the top of my head.

That was a fuel leak, and even if something like that happened here they still would have had radio contact even after the engines were out, so it wouldn't explain why the sudden disappearance.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395
That was a fuel leak, and even if something like that happened here they still would have had radio contact even after the engines were out, so it wouldn't explain why the sudden disappearance.

True, but didn't they also lose all avionics because of EFIS being powered by the engines? Same thing with RAT? I may be wrong because it was an A330, and not a B762 in Gimli's case.

Memory escapes me on that one, as well as the bulk of the avionics on the big birds; I only have 7 hours logged towards a PPL, and that is in a Skyhawk.

BL.
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
6,870
2,292
True, but didn't they also lose all avionics because of EFIS being powered by the engines? Same thing with RAT? I may be wrong because it was an A330, and not a B762 in Gimli's case.

Memory escapes me on that one, as well as the bulk of the avionics on the big birds; I only have 7 hours logged towards a PPL, and that is in a Skyhawk.

BL.

The RAT is an air powered turbine that drops down in case of a dual generator/engine failure. Think of it as a wind turbine in wind farms. It turns in the wind turning a small generator powerful enough to run the aircrafts essential systems.
 

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395
The RAT is an air powered turbine that drops down in case of a dual generator/engine failure. Think of it as a wind turbine in wind farms. It turns in the wind turning a small generator powerful enough to run the aircrafts essential systems.

Got it.. that's the part I missed. I thought that was also controlled by EFIS, if the aircraft was equipped with it. The aircrafts in question must not be controlled by it, otherwise there would be no way to control anything should it all go lights out.

BL.
 

quagmire

macrumors 604
Original poster
Apr 19, 2004
6,870
2,292
The Malaysians should just come out and say, " The plane transported itself to the Bermuda Triangle and disappeared" because they are looking highly incompetent now with their inconsistencies of where the plane was before losing contact....
 

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,396
26,521
The Misty Mountains
Do you think that possibly the search area is not correct?

That is possible, but you could still be in the right general area and not find wreckage.

I think that's one of the theories they're starting to work with. The plane could have changed course (with brief pilot interaction before something catastrophic happened, incapacitating the pilots) and continued to fly for 6+ hours on that (unknown) course, based on the estimated remaining fuel.

I know not every square mile of the globe is covered with radar but unless they turned East I don't see how the plane could have undetected for that long, unless it crashed in the water (in an area they're not searching) before getting in range again.

One key is that they "fell off radar" or "lost contact", the latter may or may not indicated they were in radar coverage. But the graphic below looks to me (unless my scale is off) like they would have been in radar coverage. You are right that radar coverage only goes out from a land based radar 100-150 miles or so. Based on the route of the flight, a similar situation when flying from New Orleans direct to Cancun, there is a segment in that flight in the middle where radar coverage is lost, and the crew reverts to position reports (UHF radio coverage is maintained). On long flights over large expanses of water there is either satellite comms (of which I am not familiar with) or HF Radio.


16e0dbfe-fc35-4b05-84a5-35443d49300d-460x400.png
link

Malaysian Air Force has managed to trace the last known location to Palau Perak which is hundreds miles off course from its original flight path.

This truly adds to the mystery. Navigation errors are a possibility, and normally crews check out their flight plans, whether they enter it or it is fed to the aircraft, although one possible wrinkle is when points on the flight plan out in the ocean consist of lat/long positions. These should be verified by the crew and are not as easy to verify as a point on land, because if a point says, DCA, the database has it's lat/long tied to it, but a lat/long is a lat/long and must be verified on a map. Some crews have been cavalier about this. I'll also point out that aircraft like Airbusses, (and I assume Boeings) have radio navigation (Tacan, VOR) tied into their nav system that the aircraft tunes and uses those references automatically when it can.

Falling off radar can mean one of three things, midair explosion, loss of altitude (by accident or on purpose) or electronics failure of some kind. Usually aircraft broadcast transponder codes. If the aircraft loses this, then ATC would have to see the aircraft on raw radar, which does not always happen on computerized systems.

4 likely possibilities at this point: (no particular order) 1) nav error, 2) deviation on purpose, possible hijack) 3) catastrophic failure, crash, 4) significant failure losing electronics and nav equipment, eventually resulting in a crash. Based on today's reporting, if you made me guess, it would be something along the lines of #4. They are now searching a huge area including the Indian Ocean, West of Malaysia, which would indicate a lost airplane with mechanical difficulties.

If the plane had made such an huge diversion from the planed route, then either a hijack or a weird action of the pilot(s) seems most obvious.

Problem with the hijack theory is that there must have been someway the pilots could have sent a signal. Otherwise this has to be the perfect hijack...
A perfectly "silent" hijack, all transponders simply switched off, an invisible course alteration, and maybe (hopefully) a successful landing on some kind a small (maybe even deserted) airfield...?
Seems too perfect even to be "Hollywood"...

It seems like if something like that happened then the pilots should have been able to get some sort of message off to ATC.

With a hijack there would have been a high probability the pilots would have been able to alert authorities. Another possibility is that the flight deck was not kept secure and then all bets are off.

Not why it went hundred's of miles off course. If it was pilot suicide, they would have just nose dived it into the water.

I see the logic, but this would not eliminate pilot suicide.

One would think, until ACA143 happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider#Refeuling

Now, I would assume that Malaysia would be Metric, so that shouldn't have been a problem.. But it couldn't be ruled out as a possibility; far cry, but still possible.

BL.

Even if they messed up and measured the amount of fuel in pounds instead of kilograms they should have had more than 40 minutes of fuel, at least I'm pretty sure I read that they lost contact about 40 minutes into the flight. So I highly doubt that would be the case.

There is virtually no way they ran out of fuel 40 minutes into the flight without a massive fuel leak, which would have been noticed and announced.

True, but didn't they also lose all avionics because of EFIS being powered by the engines? Same thing with RAT? I may be wrong because it was an A330, and not a B762 in Gimli's case.

Memory escapes me on that one, as well as the bulk of the avionics on the big birds; I only have 7 hours logged towards a PPL, and that is in a Skyhawk.

BL.

The RAT is an air powered turbine that drops down in case of a dual generator/engine failure. Think of it as a wind turbine in wind farms. It turns in the wind turning a small generator powerful enough to run the aircrafts essential systems.

As long as the RAT works. ;) But even if it does not work, the aircraft should still have at least 30 minutes of battery time where the radios would function. Now is it possible they lost their electronics and their navigation, (on board fire?) were unable communicate and at night, got lost until they ran out of fuel? At this point, just as much a possibility as any.
 
Last edited:

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,473
8,170
Somewhere
With a hijack there would have been a high probability the pilots would have been able to alert authorities. Another possibility is that the flight deck was not kept secure and then all bets are off.

I'd have to look again for a source, but I did see an article where someone said that one of the pilots had let him and a friend sit in the cockpit on a flight in 2011, so assuming that allegation is true it is certainly possible that the cockpit wasn't kept secure.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
63,834
46,282
In a coffee shop.
I'd have to look again for a source, but I did see an article where someone said that one of the pilots had let him and a friend sit in the cockpit on a flight in 2011, so assuming that allegation is true it is certainly possible that the cockpit wasn't kept secure.

Yes, I have read this, too, and photographs have been posted which have shown this.

However, it seems to me that the pilots may be in the process of being subtly scapegoated. Today's press conference in Malaysia was surprisingly hostile, and the responses from the authorities do not appear to have been always consistent.
 

aristobrat

macrumors G5
Oct 14, 2005
12,292
1,403
Here's one article.

Missing Malaysia airline pilot SMOKED and chatted with us in the cockpit, reveals young blonde passenger
Jonti Roos claims missing MH 370 pilot invited her to cockpit on 2011 flight
She and friend were entertained by Fariq Abdul Hamid for entire flight
Co-pilots smoked, chatted, and took photos with the young women
Mr Hamid was one of 239 people on board the missing Malaysia airlines flight
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cockpit-entire-flight-2011.html#ixzz2vmK9VkMV

article-2578146-1C31386700000578-612_634x382.jpg

In this picture Jonty Roos and her friend Jaan Maree pose with the other pilot on the plane where they became friend with Fariq Abdul Hamid, the first officer of Flight MH370. She said both pilots were 'friendly' although they smoked during the flight and did not always face the front. She said she did not want to suggest incompetence, but hoped her information was useful.
 

Huntn

macrumors Core
May 5, 2008
23,396
26,521
The Misty Mountains
Yes, I have read this, too, and photographs have been posted which have shown this.

However, it seems to me that the pilots may be in the process of being subtly scapegoated. Today's press conference in Malaysia was surprisingly hostile, and the responses from the authorities do not appear to have been always consistent.

Pilots are frequently scapegoated, although sometimes they are guilty of pilot error.


In this picture Jonty Roos and her friend Jaan Maree pose with the other pilot on the plane where they became friend with Fariq Abdul Hamid, the first officer of Flight MH370. She said both pilots were 'friendly' although they smoked during the flight and did not always face the front. She said she did not want to suggest incompetence, but hoped her information was useful.

His name is Fariq Adul Hamid? Would it completely unfair if that name raised a red flag with me? Probably it is if he's from a country that is predominantly Muslim. Not applying guilt, although I admit it amounts to assumptions and religious profiling. I'll apologize in advance.

Anyway, "she did not want to suggest incompetence"- that is good because smoking during the flight (if smoking is allowed) or not always facing the front is not signs of incompetence.
 
Last edited:

bradl

macrumors 603
Jun 16, 2008
5,916
17,395

IIRC, this is legal and proper on non US-based carriers. Prior to 9/11, it was always up to pilot's discretion if they would accept visitors to the flight deck while en route. I know that personally, as I remember my parents requesting such a thing for me, which the pilot granted. It wasn't for a long time, but they could still do it.

Obviously, 9/11 shut that practice down in the US. Now, whether non US-based carriers adopted that operation (up to the carrier or aviation authority of the home country of the carrier) is a different story. It could be that Malaysia did not adopt that practice, hence the picture.

BL.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.