Malaysia Airlines 777 missing en route to beijing

[Alferd Packer]

Also it looks like it has a shorter runway. Does anyone know the minimum stopping distance for a 777?

[Broomstick]

About 5,000-6,000 feet are the numbers I keep seeing, assuming most of the fuel is burned off and conditions are good, such as a dry runway and you don't care about fucking up the brakes. That's about 1500-1800m. Keep in mind, though, that I'm no expert on big jets and that's based strictly on internet research so it may be a bit off.

[Thanas]

Or you could just look at the official Boeing documents...here

About 1500-2250 meters on a dry level runway if I read it correctly, which means the runway in question should have been about twice as long as required, which seems to me to be a good length to account for malfunctions.

[Kitsune]

Or you could just look at the official Boeing documents...here

About 1500-2250 meters on a dry level runway if I read it correctly, which means the runway in question should have been about twice as long as required, which seems to me to be a good length to account for malfunctions.

Pilots do tend to like runways they are familiar with and their mind "defaults" to that.

One problem I have been reading which goes against is that I have heard argued that the 0107 ACARS report indicates a significant course change to the West. That was before the sign off and darkening of the transponder.

[Broomstick]

Or you could just look at the official Boeing documents...here
About 1500-2250 meters on a dry level runway if I read it correctly, which means the runway in question should have been about twice as long as required, which seems to me to be a good length to account for malfunctions.

That document presumes maximum landing weight, zero wind, and standard atmosphere. Actual performance will depend on actual weight, amount of headwind, altitude, and temperature/air density as well as presuming normal or short field landing. It doesn't indicate the true minimum stopping distance for a particular airplane. If you're willing to dispense with safety margins and you have less than maximum loading (even better if you have a headwind) you'll do better than those numbers. If you're willing to trash the brakes and risk setting the wheels on fire you can stop in significantly less distance than what is posted.

As I said, I took those numbers from internet research, which yes, includes Boeing's public numbers - what we really need for a definitive answer is an actual B777 pilot or better yet one of the guys who worked on the certification testing program but I doubt we'll find one of those to post here.

[Wicked Pilot]

This is probably the best breakdown of the most plausible theory I've yet read.

And it doesn't hold water. Besides this guy not understanding how large aircraft electrical systems work and how crews deal with electrical fires, the fact of the matter is if it was so bad that the aircraft couldn't get off a mayday call and couldn't land right then and there, then it absolutely wouldn't have been able to fly another seven hours in such a condition.

[Wicked Pilot]

Or you could just look at the official Boeing documents...here

About 1500-2250 meters on a dry level runway if I read it correctly, which means the runway in question should have been about twice as long as required, which seems to me to be a good length to account for malfunctions.

Keep in mind those numbers may be the factored landing distance, which is the minimum required for dispatch. The FAA requires that an airliner be able to land within 60% of the available runway at its intended destination, so the actual demonstrated landing distances may in fact be 60% of the figures in those charts.

[Kitsune]

Uri Geller is going to help find the plane
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ri-3242685

[AniThyng]

Uri Geller is going to help find the plane
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ri-3242685

Well we already have a Bomoh (traditional malay shaman) on the job, might as well.

I mean we clearly already have a Schrodinger's Plane situation so what the hey. ("It either went north or south. It either crashed or landed. The passengers are either dead or alive. It was either an accident or deliberate action.")

I mean, just today we learned (again) that appearently islanders on some remote maldives island saw a "low flying plane with red and blue stripes" the morning the plane was overdue but no one payed it any attention. Which raises the following questions

1) Is it unusual for planes from Male International Airport to fly low over that area? (for what it is worth, Malaysia Airlines does fly to Male International, with 737's.)

2) Did they actually see a plane, if if they did, was it even MH370?

3) How does this account for the satellite ping locations, and the time? Maldive's is nowhere near the search corridors marked by the last engine ping.

[mr friendly guy]

Actually if its a Schrodinger's Plane, wouldn't it be the plane went both North and South (actually that's possible if it changed direction) or both crashed and landed (not possible in this time frame) and the passengers are both dead and alive etc.

[AniThyng]

Actually if its a Schrodinger's Plane, wouldn't it be the plane went both North and South (actually that's possible if it changed direction) or both crashed and landed (not possible in this time frame) and the passengers are both dead and alive etc.

Until we observe it, nobody knows wtf happened to it. I mean really, the fact that this entire farce appears to be LOST from the outside world's perspective no longer even feels offensive to me. Nevermind that picture Mr. Coffee posted...

But yeah OK fine you caught me, it fails to stand up to physics scrutiny.

[Grumman]

Uri Geller is going to help find the plane

Not unless he's going to act as ballast.

[TimothyC]

Evidently the ACARS went inoperative some time before. Disabling the ACARS is not easy, as pointed out.

I think the theory Alferd linked to is good.

It suffers from a fatal flaw. ACARS is not as difficult to kill as was stated (it may be not widely known, but that doesn't make it not easy):



Source: http://www.737ng.co.uk/B777%20FCOM%20Fl ... Manual.pdf (warning: 60 meg PDF)

[Broomstick]

Latest new theory is a possible lithium-ion battery fire in the cargo hold. Possible? Yes, but there's no evidence for it, other than there being lithium-ion batteries being listed as cargo for that flight. You could propose someone's laptop in an overhead bin burst into flame with equal plausibility at this point. Were there laptops on board? Probably. Did any burst into flames? Who knows?

There's still a lot of activity around that spot off Australia - way off Australia, apparently it's a 4 hour flight to get there. In addition to spotter aircraft and the impending arrivals of ships they are also apparently dropping buoys to get information on currents and conditions so if they do find wreckage they'll have some notion of how far/fast/what direction it has drifted over the past couple weeks which, hopefully, will lead to more pieces.

[Sea Skimmer]

That's just a completely dumb theory. How the does a cargo battery fire cause the plane to divert for hours and hours with no communication what so ever while flying away from all the possible landing fields and making multiple deliberate course changes? This fits zero facts, which is pretty bad when we have so few.

[Broomstick]

No more whacky than a lot of other theories.

The idea here, I think (hey, it's not MY theory) is that a fast-moving fire knocks out the electrical/communication systems and heavy smoke incapacitates the flight crew/passengers, after which the plane drifts on autopilot until it runs out of fuel. Of course there are major problems with that theory, including but not limited to:

- most of the time when airplanes catch fire the crew still has the time to scream "MAYDAY WE'RE ON FIRE!" into the radio.
- if the fire knocks out the comms it's probably also going to trash the autopilot.
- a lithium-ion fire burns fucking HOT and required a waterless type of extinguisher, they're hard to control.
- while there have been lithium-ion fires on Boeing airliners since 2011 none of them resulted in crashes. They were certainly serious but the on-board systems were adequate to contain them
- those fires were from working batteries utilized by the airplane. Batteries shipped in cargo are subjected to additional precautions which make fires less likely to occur, and for the Malaysia flight the batteries in question were in secured cargo.

It's an interesting theory but like all other theories so far proposed there is either no actual evidence for it or it simply doesn't fit the facts.

[Sea Skimmer]

The 777 doesn't use li-ion batteries for its own systems anyway. Only the A380 and 787 presently do among in service jet airliners.

Even if the pilots were incapacitated instantly by a battery fire, this would hardly explain why one of them first changed the navigational waypoints while still in contact with ATC. Any kind of accidental theory went out the window once that was known.

[Kitsune]

The 777 doesn't use li-ion batteries for its own systems anyway. Only the A380 and 787 presently do among in service jet airliners.

Even if the pilots were incapacitated instantly by a battery fire, this would hardly explain why one of them first changed the navigational waypoints while still in contact with ATC. Any kind of accidental theory went out the window once that was known.

As far as I can tell, that has never been well corroborated.
Looking like it held course until sometime around the time just after handover.

[mr friendly guy]

Uri Geller is going to help find the plane
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ri-3242685

While we are onto psychics

[Mange]

They said on the news that the Malaysian transport minister was handed a note during the daily briefing today and which he read. The note stated that a Chinese satellite had spotted an object, about 120 km from where they're currently searching, and which is about 22 by 13 meters in size.

[Kitsune]

They said on the news that the Malaysian transport minister was handed a note during the daily briefing today and which he read. The note stated that a Chinese satellite had spotted an object, about 120 km from where they're currently searching, and which is about 22 by 13 meters in size.

Until and unless we get a Mk 1 eyeball on it, who knows what it is

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Uri Geller is going to help find the plane
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ri-3242685

While we are onto psychics

She's late. There was a Malay Bomoh.

It was classic.

[Simon_Jester]

They said on the news that the Malaysian transport minister was handed a note during the daily briefing today and which he read. The note stated that a Chinese satellite had spotted an object, about 120 km from where they're currently searching, and which is about 22 by 13 meters in size.

On land or on water?

Because on water that sounds a little too large for any part of a plane that could stay afloat for two weeks, I would think.

[Sea Skimmer]

In the water. That is a large chunk, but a piece of wing with a completely empty fuel tank inside could take considerable time time to flood down and sink. It isn't likely, but its not impossible. However since the search area is on the edge of the Indian Ocean Gyre its also an ideal place to find all kinds of floating trash.

[Simon_Jester]

After two weeks I'd think it more likely it's a random peace of floating junk (say, a loose sail from a small boat?)