Jump to content

Malaysia 777 Missing


Recommended Posts

The necessary inspections can all be done... I suppose I'd have to admit what you're suggesting is possible... but only because I don't have the needed data to work out the stresses involved when the tip was damaged... I think it's extremely unlikely that any forces from the tip incident were transmitted inboard with sufficient intensity to cause any further damage.... (I've seen many a wingtip incident in my career, and not a one involved any further inboard damage at all.) Remember this isn't the plastic bird... Aluminum shears pretty easily. That BA 47 accident involved much more than the wing tip, didn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 782
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Don,

Or a hijacking and course change, followed by a crash at sea somewhere a long way from where everyone is looking.

Specs,

For a ~5.5 hour flight plus alternate and reserves there wouldn't likely be any fuel in the center tank to begin with.

deicer,

I can't imagine that report will result in anything. I find it difficult to believe that the plane could have crashed so close to VVTS in extremely busy waters, and well within the range of primary radar and nobody saw anything. Of course the same could be said for anywhere in that area. You can pretty much walk from Malaysia to Vietnam by jumping from one fishing boat to another.

Mitch/Blues,

I read something somewhere that said if the repair had failed and the tip of the wing broke off it would initially be relatively easy to control but the ensuing flutter would cause a catastrophic failure in very short order. Knowing nothing about the subject, I have no idea if that's accurate or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitch/Blues,

I read something somewhere that said if the repair had failed and the tip of the wing broke off it would initially be relatively easy to control but the ensuing flutter would cause a catastrophic failure in very short order. Knowing nothing about the subject, I have no idea if that's accurate or not

I know nothing about wing tip damage either. However, I have flown a DC3 with a 'bent' wing tip and it flew level for the first time ever.

It's one thing to hit another object traveling at 10 mph on the ground but if part of the wing tip failed in flight at 500 mph, I wonder what else might break away with it..... slats/flaps or more of the wing itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bunk Dweller.... That sounds to me like someone has made an awful lot of assumptions there. In that scenario I don't think any flutter would necessarily result. Possible, I guess, but by no means a certainty. Even if something were to "flutter", it's more likely only that part would tear off, not the rest of the wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi blues;

Re #1, I thought of the cellphones etc and briefly considered that there are actually areas in Asia within range that don't have cell coverage, (heck, 300km north of Vancouver is cellphone-signal-free as are most areas of the world.

But I agree with you - extremely unlikely. However, in positing outcomes "the tree" must include all possible / plausible outcomes until proven otherwise. The airplane could be in the Thai jungle prior to reaching the coast - how plausible? Not very, for a lot of obvious reasons.

Specs;

Some B777s have fuel-tank inerting systems, (nitrogen generation). I don't know whether this airplane did or not. Bunk Dweller is correct - there would be no fuel in the center tank for such a short flight.

Mitch;

I agree with you - I think the wing-tip theory causing a loss of control is highly unlikely.

I think it is most plausible that the airplane is within about 15km of it's last communicated position but they don't have the underwater search capability in place to find the wreckage yet. One thing that AF447 should have taught us is that ocean currents and winds take light surface debris a very long way from the impact point.

I think the passport and hijack conspiracy theories and notions about authorities keeping things from everyone are nonsense. People are taking what appears to be a common occurrence regarding passports and extrapolating well beyond plausibility. All such a theory is doing is pointing out for all to see, the many substantial holes in what those in charge would have us believe is an airtight, world-wide, rapid-communication system with everything sewn up in a neat package. It ain't so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 million missing passports is a problem created by the number of existing passports that can in fact be stolen. And that problem was created at least in part through the fearful, somewhat irrational policies invoked after Bush and Washington lost their minds over the "war on terror" after 2001. The need for an entire nation to possess passports if they "want to leave or enter their country" is merely a variation on a theme, in my view. The procedures and processes which are required to be in place in faceless bureacracies to control citizens' access to identification materials is at once staggering and disturbing. I understand very well a nation's need to protect itself against intended harm but much is wrought in the name of such loosely-defined notions intended for public consumption in order to create fear and therefore obedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given clear skies and the time elapsed since the mishap (and assuming the worst) is it not possible for modern satellite imagery to possibly pick up on a debris field on water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longtimer

Given clear skies and the time elapsed since the mishap (and assuming the worst) is it not possible for modern satellite imagery to possibly pick up on a debris field on water?

Only if "Big Brother" is watching at part of the world. Events in the Ukraine may be taking precedence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we all want the "news" about this particular incident/accident but please respect Simon's website, (avherald), which prohibits the republishing of his information.

Actual subscribers are bombarding his site, thus the delay in, perhaps " your turn". The site is working, I have it as a 'bookmark' but it is slow today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we all want the "news" about this particular incident/accident but please respect Simon's website, (avherald), which prohibits the republishing of his information.

Actual subscribers are bombarding his site, thus the delay in, perhaps " your turn". The site is working, I have it as a 'bookmark' but it is slow today.

Sorry Kip. I didn't realize that. I've deleted my post. Thanks for the head's up. Best it comes from you than one of them thar ad-minister-gators. :shhh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given clear skies and the time elapsed since the mishap (and assuming the worst) is it not possible for modern satellite imagery to possibly pick up on a debris field on water?

Apparently a US official has said pentagon satellites which monitor the area showed no indications of flash or explosion during the time this aircraft went missing.

The Valuejet DC9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592) which crashed into the Florida Everglades sank into the soft swamp completely disappearing below the surface and made the recovery a challenge.

The ocean/sea in the Malaysian crash area apparently has an average depth of only 200'. What if this 777 did the same thing? Fuselage intact (wing or wings have separated) and straight into the water like a missile? How far would it bury itself in the sea floor and become nearly impossible to locate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi blues...re buried, I think that's the likeliest scenario although the airframe would be heavily fragmented. I certainly am only adding my voice from the peanut gallery of interested non-experts but as I say, I don't think they have the necessary resources (underwater electronic/magnetic gear - the kind that found AF447), searching within say, a radius of 14km or so of the disappearance of the 2ndary radar return. I think the same mistake made in the initial search for AF447 is being made here; people are assuming the airplane flew on. Because of the history of these kinds of events, I don't think it did. But it's a guess just like everyone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far would it bury itself in the sea floor and become nearly impossible to locate?

Very good point, Blues. The sea floor in the South China Sea seems fairly uniform according to Google Earth, indicating a probable sandy sea bed. In the Gulf of Thailand, the depths vary from 50 to 250 feet in the vicinity of the last known contact, perhaps a coral or rocky bottom?

But here again I ask about a seismic event. With a lawn dart entry, especially in one of the most seismically active parts of the world, presumably with thousands of monitoring sites, an impact such as has been described would surely register and be significantly different than other seismic indications. Wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Air India accident in 1985 the wreckage settled in 5000 feet of water in a valley between an underwater mountain range. The sea bed was absolutely flat. The wreckage was in 3 distinct parts, the cockpit, forward fuselage and aft fuselage. The interesting part was the 4 engines were found separately north of the wreckage pattern. It was never explained why that occurred. Perhaps ocean current. The wreckage had parts that were relatively small in size and larger pieces such as the cockpit are which was estimated to weigh approximately 25,000 pounds. The limiting problem in that investigation was that the recovery ship could only lift a maximum of 800 pounds out of the water. The SCARAB using its robotic arms would thread a sling around the piece that was to be lifted to the surface. The largest piece that was recovered was a section of the aft bulkhead area. Today I assume they can lift much higher weights.

In the case of Swissair there were literally thousands of pieces of wreckage that were about 2inches by 2 inches. Fortunately the water depth was shallow and the majority of wreckage was recovered.

It remains to be seen the outcome of this accident, they have to find the aircraft first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wreckage would be determined by Speed and trajectory of impact. Look at something like Sullys landing on the hudson. No major structural damage. Then look at Swissair with major damage. Who is to say someone didnt flip off the transponder and take the aircraft below the radar floor and try to keep it there. Flying a 777 at or below 150 feet for an extended period would be a difficult task and any resulting impact with the ocean would leave the aircraft fairly intact as long as they werent going 500 mph at the time. The engines would likely shear off and the fuselage would eventually sink leaving no debris at all.

Another possibility is an aircraft as big as a 777 impacting shallow water at speed would bury itself in the soft sea bed leaving no surface debris initially except a kerosene slick. 50' of water is just a fraction of the length of the fuselage so I would expect the impact would drive everything to the sea floor. Inertia is a powerful force when applied to a hunk of aluminum at speed.

The wing Structure of a modern aircraft is considered to be a Damage Tolerant structure. That means if the wing tip repair did fail there would be little propagation of the damage beyond the original damage to the structure. Ever see the videos of B-17s flying home with large holes in them and parts of wings and tails missing? That is a damage tolerant structure. Pretty much all modern airplanes are built with the same philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is looking more and more like an intentional act and more and more like the authorities know something they are not sharing.

Avherald has updated their article to mention that The Malaysian military is now saying they detected the aircraft on radar at 02:40 on the western side of Malaysia (hence why they're now searching in the Malacca Straits) at either 1000m below the original level or at 1000m. The same report appeared in a couple of Malaysian articles too. If you remember, 02:40 was about the time MAS originally stated that communications were lost with the aircraft. They then "updated" that time in future press releases to about 01:30, the time ATC lost contact with the aircraft. It appears the authorities seem to know that it continued to fly for at least an hour after going silent. If they turned back for some non-sinister (read: mechanical) reason, why no communications?

If it was intentional the search area just became massive. With the normal amount of fuel for that flight (~7 hours of gas) they could've made it most of the way across the Indian Ocean, that's a big search area. Once they crossed Aceh they could climb back to altitude without having to worry about being picked up by radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/missing-jet-flew-for-an-hour-after-vanishing-military-source/article17422660/

The Malaysian military believes an airliner missing for almost four days with 239 people on board flew for more than an hour after vanishing from air traffic control screens, changing course and travelling west over the Strait of Malacca, a senior military source said.

If the reports from the military are verified, it would mean the plane was able to maintain a cruising altitude and flew for about 500 km with its transponder and other tracking systems apparently switched off.

Malaysian authorities have previously said flight MH370 disappeared about an hour after it took off from Kuala Lumpur for the Chinese capital Beijing.

At the time it was roughly midway between Malaysia’s east coast town of Kota Bharu and the southern tip of Vietnam, flying at 35,000 ft (10,670 metres).

“It changed course after Kota Bharu and took a lower altitude. It made it into the Malacca Strait,” the military official, who has been briefed on investigations, told Reuters.

The Strait of Malacca, one of the world’s busiest shipping channels, runs along Malaysia’s west coast.

Earlier on Tuesday, Malaysia’s Berita Harian newspaper quoted air force chief Rodzali Daud as saying the Malaysia Airlines plane was last detected by military radar at 2:40 a.m. on Saturday, near the island of Pulau Perak at the northern end of the Strait of Malacca. It was flying at a height of about 9,000 metres, he was quoted as saying.

“The last time the flight was detected close to Pulau Perak, in the Melaka Straits, at 2.40 a.m. by the control tower before the signal was lost,” the paper quoted Rodzali as saying.

A non-military source familiar with the investigations said the report was being checked.

“This report is being investigated by the DCA (Department of Civil Aviation) and the search and rescue team,” the source said. “There are a lot of such reports.”

The time given by Rodzali was an hour and 10 minutes after the plane vanished from air traffic control screens over Igari waypoint, midway between Malaysia and Vietnam.

There was no word on what happened to the plane thereafter.

Malaysia has extended the massive search operation for the plane to the Malacca Strait after initially focusing on the South China Sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wreckage would be determined by Speed and trajectory of impact. Look at something like Sullys landing on the hudson. No major structural damage. Then look at Swissair with major damage. Who is to say someone didnt flip off the transponder and take the aircraft below the radar floor and try to keep it there. Flying a 777 at or below 150 feet for an extended period would be a difficult task and any resulting impact with the ocean would leave the aircraft fairly intact as long as they werent going 500 mph at the time. The engines would likely shear off and the fuselage would eventually sink leaving no debris at all.

Another possibility is an aircraft as big as a 777 impacting shallow water at speed would bury itself in the soft sea bed leaving no surface debris initially except a kerosene slick. 50' of water is just a fraction of the length of the fuselage so I would expect the impact would drive everything to the sea floor. Inertia is a powerful force when applied to a hunk of aluminum at speed.

The wing Structure of a modern aircraft is considered to be a Damage Tolerant structure. That means if the wing tip repair did fail there would be little propagation of the damage beyond the original damage to the structure. Ever see the videos of B-17s flying home with large holes in them and parts of wings and tails missing? That is a damage tolerant structure. Pretty much all modern airplanes are built with the same philosophy.

Really? You think an aircraft hitting the water at 400 mph would stay intact except for the engines ripping off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the whole paragraph? Controlled flight on to the water is possible but takes some skill. I toss it out there as a possibility. No at 400Mph the plane would tear itself apart. But it would be possible to set it down on the water and let her sink. No debris to speak of at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with the entire paragraph. It would even be easier to fly the aircraft at 150 feet than try to set it down on the ocean after ripping off an engine without catching a wingtip.

Sully landed in a calm river, downstream with no waves or swells at 125 kts with a roll angle of 0.4 degrees. There was damage to the lower fuselage skin.

The force of drag on a body in a fluid is a square of the speed, so at 4 times the speed, the force on the aircraft would be 16 times greater.

Inertia also applies to water at rest, so as much inertia as the aircraft has, the water has lots, too, and I'd suggest a lot more than the aircraft. In addition, I would guess that the sea surface in that area would not be as smooth as the Hudson. The Valujet flight "landed" in the everglades (which is essentially water with some softer, lighter stuff mixed in) and there was hardly anything left. Edit... probably a bad example, but water is still very hard at high speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time and too many experiences have already taught us: the faster you hit the water, the smaller the bits are in the resultant debris. I doubt any of the bits would still be carrying anything at all of their prior, in-flight momentum, when they finally hit the sea floor, even at only 50 ft. An airplane is not a "hunk" of aluminum Boestar... it's an extremely thin skinned aluminum egg, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was night when this event took place. I used to fly the "Argus" and trust me the ocean at night flying low level is not a very friendly place. It is hard to believe that whoever was flying that aircraft, if indeed anyone was in control of the plane would have the skill level to fly low level over the ocean at night without disastrous consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...