Possible MH-370 debris found on Reunion Island?

a reply to: Zaphod58

That aircraft was at the gate when the fire broke out.

I know, that is not an asnwer to my question. I asked if the autopilot was damaged in that fire and if it would have been able to fly on if it happened during flight.

Actually, there were a number of them that said this scenario early on, but it's not nearly as exciting as pilot suicide/stealing the plane/hijacking so you almost never hear anyone talking about it being an accident anymore.

What is that supposed to mean. Are you saying that airplane experts are drawing conclusion based on the juicyness of such a conclusion?

Could there maybe be another reason why you don't see much talk about it being an accident no more?

Perhaps because the evidence points towards it not being just an accident?


Why does it absolutely need to be an accident and why would you need to dismiss, or even discredit these at least equally, if not more, probable scenarios?

a reply to: GetOutOfMyRoad

It was at the gate. They didn't check the systems after the fire, because they were busy doing damage assessment, so we don't know if the autopilot survived or not.

I didn't say anything about the experts drawing conclusions, did I. But if the media doesn't bother reporting something they don't see as juicy, you're not going to hear about it, are you.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

Provided someone is there to do switch systems. If the crew was incapacitated, the systems wouldn't switch over automatically. At least they didn't when I was working them.

Things have changed. For example,the Backup AC electrical system is will automatically provide power when:Only one main AC generator is available; Power to one or both main AC busses is lost; or, Approach (APP) mode is selected for autopilot autoland. And if both transfer buses are lost, the rat automatically deploys. And if power is lost to both transfer buses, the APU automatically starts. And the ELMS automatically sheds loads when necessary. A lot of the "What the hell is that light and what does it really meam?"has been eliminated. Have you ever seen the FE panel on the old turbojet DC-8? They had to automate a lot to get rid of the third cockpit crewmember.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It was at the gate.

Yes, you already said that. I already said that I was aware of that.

They didn't check the systems after the fire, because they were busy doing damage assessment,

So what was the damage?

I didn't say anything about the experts drawing conclusions, did I. But if the media doesn't bother reporting something they don't see as juicy, you're not going to hear about it, are you.

Well I was talking about experts and their conclusions, and you responded with this,

Actually, there were a number of them that said this scenario early on, but it's not nearly as exciting as pilot suicide/stealing the plane/hijacking so you almost never hear anyone talking about it being an accident anymore.

Looks like you were refring to said experts.

It doesn't matter to the point I was making.

Many experts are coming to these conclusions. Many are not suggesting there was a fire that incapacitated the pilots, disabled the transponders and all their backup systems, yet flew on, on autopilot......

a reply to: GetOutOfMyRoad

They didn't look at the electronics. Why is that so hard to understand? They looked at the damage to the cockpit, and decided it was too much to repair, so they wrote the aircraft off and scrapped it, without looking at every single possible system to see if it was damaged or not.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They looked at the damage to the cockpit, and decided it was too much to repair

Does that mean it was too damaged to keep on flying on autopilot if it happened in the air, like you just suggested happened with MH370?

a reply to: GetOutOfMyRoad

No, it means that it would have cost more than it was worth to fix it. It doesn't say anything about if it could have continued flying or not, only that it wasn't worth fixing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And this was after the fire was put out by Fire rescue

Would it keep flying if a fire like this broke out in flight, without Fire rescue?

a reply to: GetOutOfMyRoad

There's no telling if it would or not. United 811 flew with a huge hole in the side of the airplane, and Aloha 243 flew with most of the top missing, while other aircraft have crashed with much less damage to them. So there's no way to tell.

The only reason I dont like the fire idea, is there was no warning, indicator, sensor, alarm or anything noted to indicate smoke/fire

You then have the assumption that the fire broke out in the area the bus is for the alarms or the sensors? so why didn't the pilots communicate something was wrong, fire, smoke, sensors, not working?

For a fire to

disable communications ( why didnt anyone report something..)
disable radar (why could no one track the plane and why did it dissapear of radar?)
disable sensors (why did nothing detect smoke, heat, instruments malfunction?)
disable alarms (why did nothing alert to a change of course, loss of signal)
incapacitate pilots (why did no one react?)

seems to far fetched for me..

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. It wouldn't have to knock out communications, the crew just had to be too busy fighting it until it was too late. The only thing we know went off was the transponder. We don't know if there were alarms or not, or what the crew did.

Interesting article from a 777 captain, he cannot believe it to be a fire or any other emergency situation and that it must have been, as it appeared, a planned event:

www.businessinsider.com...

Not sure where he got that the plane was flying for seven hours after from though?

a reply to: lamore

Well, the plane was actually flying for approximately 7+/- hours after the loss of the transponder signal (no one knows for certain exactly how long). However, I'm not sure this was known at the time the article was written.

The problem I have with this article is, if the date is correct, it was only written days after the disappearance. There has been considerable data gathered since then. I'm not suggesting it mutes the points the pilots were making in the article, more just there's a lot more facts now.

Personally, I'm a bit dubious about a fire on the flight deck as well, but not for the exact reasons stated in the article. My issue is the two course changes out over the Andaman Sea. Without those two course changes MH370 would have overflown Indonesia, and this appears (to me anyway) to show conscious intent. Although, as Zaphod points out, this could have been attributable to setting the autopilot to fly in likely clear airspace with little oversight while the flight crew dealt with a problem.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. It wouldn't have to knock out communications, the crew just had to be too busy fighting it until it was too late. The only thing we know went off was the transponder. We don't know if there were alarms or not, or what the crew did.

Looks like you have no idea about the existing protocols.

www.businessinsider.com...

These pilots point out that smoke in the cockpit is one of the most common emergencies that pilots train for and that 777s are equipped with full-face oxygen masks that the pilots would have put on before they did anything else. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

They also say that, unless the pilots ignored their training, they would then have run through a checklist of tasks that would have included descending rapidly and making an emergency radio call.

Additionally, normal emergency protocols train the crew to immediately don and wear full-face O2 masks (the B777 is equipped with them), and designate one pilot to fly and talk to everyone (aviate and communicate) while the other pilot runs the checklist and fights the problem. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

Your suggestion that both pilots were too busy fighting the emergency to send out a mayday is pure fantasy and would be a breach of protocol.

Aviate AND communicate.

Not aviate, navigate, comunicate in that order.

Are you making stuff up and/or are you simply not aware of the protocols?

a reply to: DProgram

Have you read ANYTHING I talked about, or those quotes closely?

The cockpit fire on the other 777 that showed there was a manufacturing issue was in the CREW OXYGEN SYSTEM. You can't put an oxygen mask on if your damn oxygen supply is ON FIRE.

Read your damn quote.

A checklist of tasks

That would include, flying the airplane, choosing a place to land, and communicating with the ground. Aviate, navigate, communicate.

They're also talking about smoke not an actual fire in the cockpit if you read your quote. There's going to be a much different reaction if a blow torch ignites next to your shoulder.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The cockpit fire on the other 777 that showed there was a manufacturing issue was in the CREW OXYGEN SYSTEM. You can't put an oxygen mask on if your damn oxygen supply is ON FIRE.

Oh so you are saying that this is what happened to MH370 after this had happened to the other plane? No action had been taken to prevent the same thing from happening?

Also, they had to write of that plane, after the fire had to be put out by Fire Rescue. you really think it would have kept flying in that scenario. Many actual pilots seems to disagree with the whole notion of a fire.

That would include, flying the airplane, choosing a place to land, and communicating with the ground. Aviate, navigate, communicate.

Did you miss the parts where it says the tasks are divided bewteen the pilots?

Additionally, normal emergency protocols train the crew to immediately don and wear full-face O2 masks (the B777 is equipped with them), and designate one pilot to fly and talk to everyone (aviate and communicate) while the other pilot runs the checklist and fights the problem. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

Completely blows your little argument out of the water, doesn't it?

They're also talking about smoke not an actual fire in the cockpit if you read your quote. There's going to be a much different reaction if a blow torch ignites next to your shoulder.

Also makes it hard to believe it would keep flying for hours after that. Again, you are claiming a fire in the oxygen supply is what happened?

a reply to: DProgram

Airlines do maintenance and make required fixes on schedules. After United 811 it took almost two years to make the required changes to cargo doors, and that was far more dangerous than a handful of aircraft that didn't have required fasteners installed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You didn't answer the question. Was action taken to prevent this from happening again?

Yes or no?

a reply to: DProgram

A notice was sent out of course. That notice would have given a time frame to have the check and required fix completed. If the aircraft didn't have a scheduled check between getting the notice and the accident it may or may not have been done.