It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Objects found in Malaysia Airlines search

page: 26
42
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Cocos (keeling) island west island.
Google earth.
Runway. Would it be within reach?




posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 


Decompression doesn't kill you immediately. Unless it was slow and not recognized the crew would have been able to get on oxygen.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


Not with that aircraft, or the fuel they had on board. They would have had to stop for fuel somewhere to do it. It's 11,579 miles from Kuala Lumpur to there. The 777-200ER, which is the family this aircraft belonged to, has a range of 7,725 nautical miles (just under 8900 miles). The 777-200LR, which has one of the longest ranges of a commercial aircraft, has a range of 10,811 miles (roughly). So there is no way any 777 could have done it without stopping for fuel somewhere.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Shana91aus
 


There is grey on the outer skin paint, and the inner skin that passengers never see is green.


Thankyou for that i had no idea!


Hopefully today is the day they get to it, can't imagine what the families are going through, hearing days ago that they may have spotted it then waiting every day since then for answers and for them to get to it & still nothing. Atleast if its found they get some closure because i think that would be tearing them up more than anything not knowing what has happened to their loved one, they can't accept it & heal with no answers.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
CNN is now saying there was 200 kgs of lithium batteries in the cargo hold. I understood that passengers can't put lithium batteries in their checked luggage because of dangers of them overheating so I don't understand how they can carry that many in the cargo hold on a passenger plane. If there's a pilot here, do they have to give the daptain a NOTOC for that? If so, would that ever be released to the public?

According to the guidelines in the link that I posted, it doesn't seem likely the captain would have received NOTOC for anything he might have been carrying for Freescale.....or would he?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by meemaw
 


It would be listed as "Classified Material" if it couldn't be described. Then they'd mark whether it was hazmat or not.

Lithium batteries can be carried in cargo, both by passengers and as cargo, but they have to be packed properly. You can't carry loose batteries in your baggage.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
They are preparing people to "know" and believe it crashed by omission.

Even though they havent found debris of the plane they are acting as if its sure thing. Why do that when you could hols off until youre sure?

Why say all the passengers are lost BEFORE they know with proof, but also coinciding with the news that the pilot was talking to someone on a burner phone bought with stolen I.d.?

Yeah this isnt over. I dont believe the debris.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The lithium battery issue has been raised in the media in snippets over the last few days. When I heard it on CNN my first thought was that if they were carrying that much battery cargo, surely, it must be heavily regulated. Many people believe that Malasia is hiding something. May be they're protecting the airlines? Perhaps they didn't follow protocols? After doing some more reading, of some very dry material, I found that NOTOC and storage regulations depend on the type of battery. One interesting document I found was here, page 9 details results of burn tests done on various types of batteries. Stored properly they don't seem like such a risk.

As an aside, is it just me or should CNN be labelled an entertainment, not news show, and bad entertainment at that..



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by meemaw
 


Malaysia is trying to save face, and protect themselves. The government owns a large chunk of the airline after bailing them out of financial problems over the last few years. A hijacking and crash is the best possible outcome for them.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   

meemaw
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The lithium battery issue has been raised in the media in snippets over the last few days. When I heard it on CNN my first thought was that if they were carrying that much battery cargo, surely, it must be heavily regulated. Many people believe that Malasia is hiding something. May be they're protecting the airlines? Perhaps they didn't follow protocols? After doing some more reading, of some very dry material, I found that NOTOC and storage regulations depend on the type of battery. One interesting document I found was here, page 9 details results of burn tests done on various types of batteries. Stored properly they don't seem like such a risk.

As an aside, is it just me or should CNN be labelled an entertainment, not news show, and bad entertainment at that..


Yes, 200 Kg of lithium batteries (400 Lbs) www.telegraph.co.uk... (a little past the middle of the page at 10.33).
That fire would get pretty hot.
I don't have a schematic of the electrical wiring for a 777, but I wonder if the location in the cargo hold, in relation to the cockpit controls, has any relevance to this problem.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


It would be more in relation to the forward or aft electronics bays (probably forward), than the flight controls.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 


I didn't read through the whole aviation safety and lithium battery document that I linked to (felt way too much like homework) but I wonder if there are guidelines as to where they need to be stored in a cargo hold (directly under extinguishers). Who knows, I suppose anything at this point is possible, may be a problem with the batteries contributed to this mess.
My theory is something happened just after the co-pilot said, "alright, good night" and it caused an electrical shut down or it caused the pilots to shut down the buses as well as a decompression. They did the standard drop and left turn, presumably heading back to land. I propose the drop to 12, 000 was because of a pressurization problem, or because they lost instrumentation. Once they got to the Malacca strait, the captain banked to the left, with the intent of heading back to land at the Kuala Lumpur airport. Had he not banked to the left for the turn up the Malacca strait and continued on the trajectory they were on aftter the first left turn, the plane would not have dumped them south to the present lower Indian ocean search area but on a heading towards the Maldives. Once he made the second left, they may have been overcome with toxic fumes from whatever was burning, causing the pilots to miss making the 3rd left towards Kuala Lumpur and the plane continuied on that trajectory and continued flying on that heading until it ran out of fuel, and glided into the ocean where they're looking.
Why didn't they send out any emergency signals and why was all communication cut? We may never know...



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by meemaw
 


There are a couple ways communications could be lost. One being fire in the electronics bay, which provides power to the radio system.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Doesn't the 777 have fire suppression in the cargo area.?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
CLass E smoke detector only. Class C suppression. 777, both C and E.

Sound right?



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


After March 18, 2001 all US registered aircraft had to have either Class C or Class E systems in the cargo hold (depending on if it's a passenger or freighter). Class C requires both a smoke detector, and fire suppression systems, and Class E requires a smoke detector. The 777 has a Class C system on it.

All 777s are going to have the Class C system, as it's easier to build them in all of them, than in specific ones.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I thought I read the 777 had a lower area class c and another area class E. Not true?

If only class C then one would think the halon would stop the fire. Maybe molten material might melt aircraft parts though.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


The cargo holds require a Class C, which is smoke and fire. Other areas only require an E, which is just smoke. If there was a fire, and if the crew activated the system, then it should have been able to put it out.



posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I found it.

class E - allowed only on airplanes used strictly for carrying cargo

So the 777 does have class C compartments only, as you mentioned.

thanks



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by jazz10
 


Not with that aircraft, or the fuel they had on board. They would have had to stop for fuel somewhere to do it. It's 11,579 miles from Kuala Lumpur to there. The 777-200ER, which is the family this aircraft belonged to, has a range of 7,725 nautical miles (just under 8900 miles). The 777-200LR, which has one of the longest ranges of a commercial aircraft, has a range of 10,811 miles (roughly). So there is no way any 777 could have done it without stopping for fuel somewhere.



As Boeing's first fly-by-wire airliner, it has computer-mediated controls; it is also the first entirely computer-designed commercial aircraft.

The 777 is produced in two fuselage lengths as of 2014. The original 777-200 variant entered commercial service in 1995, followed by the extended-range 777-200ER in 1997. The stretched 777-300, which is 33.3 ft (10.1 m) longer, entered service in 1998. The longer-range 777-300ER and 777-200LR variants entered service in 2004 and 2006 respectively, while a freighter version, the 777F, debuted in February 2009. Both longer-range versions and the freighter feature General Electric GE90 engines and extended raked wingtips. The earlier 777-200, -200ER and -300 versions are equipped with GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines. The 777-200LR is the world's longest-range airliner and can fly more than halfway around the globe; it holds the record for the longest distance flown non-stop by a commercial aircraft.[7][8] In November 2013, Boeing announced the development of upgraded 777-8X and 777-9X models featuring composite wings and GE9X engines.




top topics



 
42
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join