missing plane

[yadayada]

well if your job is flying a plane, i would think that you would be sick of it after work. So why continue in your basement?

[gfp]

c'mon man, this is a value investor forum - a lot of us do this for a living and almost every other waking hour of the day.  Aviation enthusiasts are often into simulators.  Investment enthusiasts spend the weekend devouring annual reports.  To each their own.  Even rookie F1 drivers use simulators/games to learn tracks they've never driven.

 

well if your job is flying a plane, i would think that you would be sick of it after work. So why continue in your basement?

[Gamecock-YT]

So how long until the oxygen supply to the masks runs out for the crew and passengers?  Is there enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support human life at 45,000 ft?

 

I read that the oxygen supply to the masks last longer in the cockpit -- can't verify that but it could be true.

 

Putting that together, I wonder if it's possible to fly around at 45,000 ft until the oxygen runs out and everyone dies (except the pilot).

 

I want to say 15 minutes of cabin oxygen. Maybe 30 for the cockpit, but that could be totally off base.

 

 

So it'd have to be instantaneous getting your mask on, or you're done.

[Gamecock-YT]

well if your job is flying a plane, i would think that you would be sick of it after work. So why continue in your basement?

 

These days most airline pilots aren't allowed to 'hand fly' their aircraft since the auto-pilot does such a more efficient job flying complicated departures/arrivals (not to mention insurance issues), some do it just to keep their skills sharp.

[gary17]

I wonder how long does it take to de-pressurize the cabin - is it instantaneous?  if it takes 30s or more for the cabin pressure to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere at 45000ft - then they'd have more time to put the mask on.  Unless you have a plane door that opens which would allow the equilibrium to be reached very fast, i can't imagine how else the plane can depressurize very fast as it is a very tightly sealed space.

 

--

 

On a separate note - I am surprised modern commercial planes carrying that many people are allowed to turn the transponder off - why is that even an option? is there any instance when it is a good idea to turn it off?

[beerbaron]

I wonder how long does it take to de-pressurize the cabin - is it instantaneous?  if it takes 30s or more for the cabin pressure to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere at 45000ft - then they'd have more time to put the mask on.  Unless you have a plane door that opens which would allow the equilibrium to be reached very fast, i can't imagine how else the plane can depressurize very fast as it is a very tightly sealed space.

 

--

 

On a separate note - I am surprised modern commercial planes carrying that many people are allowed to turn the transponder off - why is that even an option? is there any instance when it is a good idea to turn it off?

 

Yes, when they are parked at the airport it shows all over the air traffic controller's screeen, fillin up their screen of unecessary planes and confusion.

 

BeerBaron

[longlake95]

I wonder how long does it take to de-pressurize the cabin - is it instantaneous?  if it takes 30s or more for the cabin pressure to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere at 45000ft - then they'd have more time to put the mask on.  Unless you have a plane door that opens which would allow the equilibrium to be reached very fast, i can't imagine how else the plane can depressurize very fast as it is a very tightly sealed space.

 

--

 

On a separate note - I am surprised modern commercial planes carrying that many people are allowed to turn the transponder off - why is that even an option? is there any instance when it is a good idea to turn it off?

the cabin can depressurize in seconds, if it's a rapid D, such as a outflow valve failure. Or over a period of minutes if u have a slow leak in the hull or an air conditioning problem. When you start a emergency descent due to loss of the cabin press., you normally catch the cabin (where cabin alt meets aircraft alt) around 20,000ft.  If you are all wondering, the oxygen generators in cabin normally supply around 20 mins of oxy. Of course that may vary a little depending on aircraft type. The flight deck normally has around 1200 psi of O2, which would give 2 users 45 mins or so. You cant open cabin dorrs in flight, they are plug type doors.

 

As for transponder: it has several modes which are used for various situations. You want to be able to turn it off, especially on the ground because it clutters the ground controllers scope, if they are using ASDE - airport surface detection equipment. You also want to be able to turn it off and reset it, like any electronic device, it sometimes need a ctrl-alt-del.

[Crip1]

I wonder how long does it take to de-pressurize the cabin - is it instantaneous?  if it takes 30s or more for the cabin pressure to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere at 45000ft - then they'd have more time to put the mask on.  Unless you have a plane door that opens which would allow the equilibrium to be reached very fast, i can't imagine how else the plane can depressurize very fast as it is a very tightly sealed space.

 

--

 

On a separate note - I am surprised modern commercial planes carrying that many people are allowed to turn the transponder off - why is that even an option? is there any instance when it is a good idea to turn it off?

 

Yes, when they are parked at the airport it shows all over the air traffic controller's screeen, fillin up their screen of unecessary planes and confusion.

 

BeerBaron

 

 

I wondered about the reason a transponder could be turned off manually. Now that I've heard it, I cannot believe that there is not a way that the transponder is "automatically" on when the plane is above a certain altitude (like 3 feet) or when it is going above a certain speed, etc. Understood in full that I'm being a Monday Morning Quarterback and there has got to be something that I don't know but, seriously, how can the industry NOT have a way to make sure someone knows where every plane is at all times? I do not understand.

 

 

-Crip

[Crip1]

c'mon man, this is a value investor forum - a lot of us do this for a living and almost every other waking hour of the day.  Aviation enthusiasts are often into simulators.  Investment enthusiasts spend the weekend devouring annual reports.  To each their own.  Even rookie F1 drivers use simulators/games to learn tracks they've never driven.

 

well if your job is flying a plane, i would think that you would be sick of it after work. So why continue in your basement?

 

 

The simulator thing, in and of itself, does not overly concern me, based on a couple of observations. 1) My next door neighbor is a commercial pilot. He has a number of books about airplanes, photo books like "Chicago from the air", and, in the eight years I've known him, looks up at every airplane that comes overhead...every single time. 2) I bartended at a hotel years ago. We had a number of Rail Road employees (Soo Line for those who are interested) who would stay there. It was remarkable....after an 8 hour day they would come to the bar and, for 6 hours, drink beer (not excessively, mind you) and talk about trains, the entire time, day after day. Many of these guys have elaborate model trains in their homes.

 

 

 

Bottom line, I am not ready to call him innocent, but the flight simulator would be totally unusual in and of itself.

 

 

-Crip

[leftcoast]

Putting that together, I wonder if it's possible to fly around at 45,000 ft until the oxygen runs out and everyone dies (except the pilot).

The flight deck normally has around 1200 psi of O2, which would give 2 users 45 mins or so.

 

No need for the pilot to stay conscious once the new flight plan has been entered and the autopilot engaged. If you really think the whole thing through (as a pilot would), you might deliberately choose to go to sleep along with the passengers, because it's relatively nice way to go. You actually feel euphoric and dopey for a few moments and then you just go to sleep.  Much better than being awake for those final moments of terror when the ocean is coming at you at hundreds of miles per hour. And being awake at that final moment might test your conviction on the whole matter... maybe you're self-aware enough to know that you'll likely lose your nerve and be tempted to pull the nose up when that moment comes. Better to just automate the whole process and then check out pleasantly.

[Phaceliacapital]

c'mon man, this is a value investor forum - a lot of us do this for a living and almost every other waking hour of the day.  Aviation enthusiasts are often into simulators.  Investment enthusiasts spend the weekend devouring annual reports.  To each their own.  Even rookie F1 drivers use simulators/games to learn tracks they've never driven.

 

well if your job is flying a plane, i would think that you would be sick of it after work. So why continue in your basement?

 

 

The simulator thing, in and of itself, does not overly concern me, based on a couple of observations. 1) My next door neighbor is a commercial pilot. He has a number of books about airplanes, photo books like "Chicago from the air", and, in the eight years I've known him, looks up at every airplane that comes overhead...every single time. 2) I bartended at a hotel years ago. We had a number of Rail Road employees (Soo Line for those who are interested) who would stay there. It was remarkable....after an 8 hour day they would come to the bar and, for 6 hours, drink beer (not excessively, mind you) and talk about trains, the entire time, day after day. Many of these guys have elaborate model trains in their homes.

 

 

Exactly, one of my friends is a pilot and he is sincerely disappointed if he sees a plane but it is too far off to see what type it is..

 

 

[yadayada]

c'mon man, this is a value investor forum - a lot of us do this for a living and almost every other waking hour of the day.  Aviation enthusiasts are often into simulators.  Investment enthusiasts spend the weekend devouring annual reports.  To each their own.  Even rookie F1 drivers use simulators/games to learn tracks they've never driven.

 

well if your job is flying a plane, i would think that you would be sick of it after work. So why continue in your basement?

 

 

The simulator thing, in and of itself, does not overly concern me, based on a couple of observations. 1) My next door neighbor is a commercial pilot. He has a number of books about airplanes, photo books like "Chicago from the air", and, in the eight years I've known him, looks up at every airplane that comes overhead...every single time. 2) I bartended at a hotel years ago. We had a number of Rail Road employees (Soo Line for those who are interested) who would stay there. It was remarkable....after an 8 hour day they would come to the bar and, for 6 hours, drink beer (not excessively, mind you) and talk about trains, the entire time, day after day. Many of these guys have elaborate model trains in their homes.

 

 

 

Bottom line, I am not ready to call him innocent, but the flight simulator would be totally unusual in and of itself.

 

 

-Crip

I find it also weird that people think that could mean he is somehow crazy or something. Ofcourse some people are obsessed with it, but that should only mean they are better pilots, and not more likely to suddenly do something crazy.

 

If they found a bomb making kit, or some kind of strange sex dungeon, then i would think there is more reason for suspicion.

[Green King]

they are just looking for confirmation bias. This should be treated just like a investment idea you have a hypothesis of the the business or this case event. You look for facts to evidence to support the hypothesis.  If there is enough evidence you buy or say this is true. if not it is put into the too hard pile or become a unsolved case.

 

evidence of a simulator is just noise and does not materially contribute to any conclusion.

[rkbabang]

I wondered about the reason a transponder could be turned off manually. Now that I've heard it, I cannot believe that there is not a way that the transponder is "automatically" on when the plane is above a certain altitude (like 3 feet) or when it is going above a certain speed, etc.

 

That would be a difficult thing to get right to allow you to takeoff and land at any airport in the world.  There are many airports where the runway is over 3 ft in elevation.  Denver International Airport is 5,430 ft.  So if you could set it to over 5430ft to allow you to land in Denver, but that is pretty high in the air if you are flying to Boston.  It would have to have GPS and a terrain elevation map of the world built into it so it would know how high above the ground it is.  Of course automatic systems can have bugs and can fail for any number of reasons, so it wouldn't necessarily be more reliable than relying on human pilots to switch it on and off at the right times.

 

 

[cofabmd]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

One of the smarter, more logical explanations.

[jouni1]

I wondered about the reason a transponder could be turned off manually. Now that I've heard it, I cannot believe that there is not a way that the transponder is "automatically" on when the plane is above a certain altitude (like 3 feet) or when it is going above a certain speed, etc.

 

That would be a difficult thing to get right to allow you to takeoff and land at any airport in the world.  There are many airports where the runway is over 3 ft in elevation.  Denver International Airport is 5,430 ft.  So if you could set it to over 5430ft to allow you to land in Denver, but that is pretty high in the air if you are flying to Boston.  It would have to have GPS and a terrain elevation map of the world built into it so it would know how high above the ground it is.  Of course automatic systems can have bugs and can fail for any number of reasons, so it wouldn't necessarily be more reliable than relying on human pilots to switch it on and off at the right times.

 

why not make it turn off when the wheels have been on ground for a minute or so? i also can't comprehend that one of the most technologically advanced industry in the world hasn't figured a way to keep track of these hundred million dollar machines. the idea that a pilot can just flick a switch and fly somebody else's plane wherever he pleases is just out of this world.

[Guest longinvestor]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

One of the smarter, more logical explanations.

 

+1. Wow! Thanks for posting. Given that it is written by an experienced pilot, it is the most credible "in the pilot's shoe" description of what likely happened. Will be validated when they find it in the Indian Ocean along this trajectory.

[rkbabang]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

One of the smarter, more logical explanations.

 

+1. Wow! Thanks for posting. Given that it is written by an experienced pilot, it is the most credible "in the pilot's shoe" description of what likely happened. Will be validated when they find it in the Indian Ocean along this trajectory.

 

I agree, but to give credit where credit is due, Palantir posted this already just yesterday a few messages up:  http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/missing-plane/msg162438/#msg162438

[Guest wellmont]

electrical fire in the cockpit of a recent Boeing 777? I think that's about as unlikely as most of the other theories out there. probably more.

[rkbabang]

Large Aircraft Disappearances and Searches Since 1948

[yadayada]

if it is stolen, they probably didnt expect this kind of publicity.

[rkbabang]

if it is stolen, they probably didnt expect this kind of publicity.

 

Is there a non-public way to quietly steal a Boeing 777 airliner and kidnap 239 people?  I think publicity is a given.

 

[leftcoast]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

 

One of the smarter, more logical explanations.

 

+1. Wow! Thanks for posting. Given that it is written by an experienced pilot, it is the most credible "in the pilot's shoe" description of what likely happened. Will be validated when they find it in the Indian Ocean along this trajectory.

 

The article's "electrical fire" hypothesis seems weak to me for several reasons:

 

1. The exact timing and sequence of events are really suspicious and strongly suggest pre-meditation rather than an in-flight emergency.

• The transponder was turned off 1 minute before the final radio transmission, when someone in the cockpit said "alright, goodnight" to Malaysian ATC. That radio transmission makes no sense if the crew was battling a fire. I know the article says that maybe the crew was unaware of either the fire or the disabled transponder at that point.. but it was just moments later that the plane changed course without any further communication, so that doesn't make sense either.
  
• This precise moment of transition between Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace, just after the plane signed off with Malaysian ATC, but before saying hello to Vietnamese ATC, would be the perfect time to divert the plane, since there would be confusion on both sides about who was responsible for it. The pilot would know this.
  

2. The plane made several more heading changes after the first one. It did not fly along a straight path after turning west toward Langkawi, as the article suggests. According to military radar, it changed direction several more times, following various navigational waypoints. This means that someone was either awake and at the controls (not overcome with smoke as the article suggests), or more likely IMO, that these waypoints had been programmed into the FMS and the autopilot was flying.

 

3. If the pilot was intending to make an emergency landing at Langkawi, he should have been dumping fuel to lighten the aircraft and minimize post-crash fire. This is what the crew of Swissair 111 (referenced by the article) did when they tried to divert to Halifax. A fully-loaded airplane is harder to land gently and will not glide as far if engine power is cut. But according to the satellite "pings" the plane flew on for 6 more hours, which suggests no fuel was dumped.

 

I don't like casting suspicion on the 2 people that were most directly responsible for the passengers' safety either, but to me it's the simplest explanation that fits with all of the known facts. Pilot suicide is a taboo subject in the aviation industry (just look at the investigation of the EgyptAir crash in 1999), and is likely under-reported.

mh370flightpath.jpg-large

[cofabmd]

-electrical fire in the cockpit of a recent Boeing 777? I think that's about as unlikely as most of the other theories out there.-

 

"The cockpit-voice recorder captured a "pop" followed by a hissing noise, similar to the escape of pressurised gas, says the inquiry.

 

"I unfastened the seat-belt immediately and stood up very quickly," the first officer told investigators. "At the same time the captain left his seat quickly. The smoke and fire were spreading very quickly. After that, the captain ordered me to get out of the cockpit.""

 

The captain attempted to extinguish the fire but said: "The fire bottle was completely depleted without any influence on the fire intensity."

 

Three years earlier an ABX Air Boeing 767-200 preparing to depart San Francisco suffered a fire in the supernumerary compartment behind the cockpit. The crew had similarly mentioned hearing popping and hissing sounds at the time.

 

US investigators attributed the fire to a "lack of positive separation" between electrical wiring and conductive oxygen system components. This allowed a short-circuit to breach a combustible oxygen hose which fed a rapid fire.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/egyptair-777-fire-probe-inconclusive-but-short-circuit-379655/

 

[Guest wellmont]

i don't think they would be able to fly for thousands of miles with a fire in the cockpit.