Malaysian 777 missing
08-08-2020, 04:44 AM
#1121
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Firefighter
or at least what I could understand
08-08-2020, 09:15 AM
#1122
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 38,241
Originally Posted by Firefighter
It's a stretch, but stranger things have happened. I'm not sold either way.
08-08-2020, 04:38 PM
#1123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,773
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I came up with an in-flight fire hypothesis near the start of this thread which could have (barely) explained the circumstances.
It's a stretch, but stranger things have happened. I'm not sold either way.
It's a stretch, but stranger things have happened. I'm not sold either way.
08-08-2020, 08:43 PM
#1124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,672
Originally Posted by Firefighter
The max operating altitude limitation of 43,100 has to do with pressurization and cabin differential. It has NOTHING to do with how high the airplane can physically fly. Any professional pilot knows that.
08-08-2020, 11:20 PM
#1125
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Airhoss
From the author “nicknamepilot”, Quote “No 777 can fly above 43,100 feet”.... And you just lost any and all credibility.
The max operating altitude limitation of 43,100 has to do with pressurization and cabin differential. It has NOTHING to do with how high the airplane can physically fly. Any professional pilot knows that.
The max operating altitude limitation of 43,100 has to do with pressurization and cabin differential. It has NOTHING to do with how high the airplane can physically fly. Any professional pilot knows that.
08-08-2020, 11:28 PM
#1126
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I came up with an in-flight fire hypothesis near the start of this thread which could have (barely) explained the circumstances.
It's a stretch, but stranger things have happened. I'm not sold either way.
It's a stretch, but stranger things have happened. I'm not sold either way.
interesting. I’ll have to dig for that. This was the first time I heard that the aircraft had an in flight fire two weeks prior to the disappearance.
08-09-2020, 08:32 AM
#1127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,672
Originally Posted by Firefighter
well, he’s not on this thread. But I’m failing to understand what you’re trying to say. Was the author implying that anything above 43k FT had anything to do with cabin pressurization?
The flight manual limit of 43,100 is simply a cabin pressurization limitation. The airplane is capable of flying much higher than 43,100. Claiming that the radar track altitude data was impossible because a flight manual altitude limitation was exceeded is absolutely incorrect and it immediately proves that the author is not a professional pilot, and has very limited or no aerospace/ commercial aviation knowledge. He’s a blogger with decent google search skills, He has no real world knowledge and as such should not be trusted to provide accurate information on this subject.
Just FYI.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bgmann
Foreign
25
01-30-2008 12:26 PM
