Airline Pilot Central Forums - Malaysian 777 missing

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Safety (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/)

- - Malaysian 777 missing (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/80284-malaysian-777-missing.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1604501)

I think the "authorities" are full of crap, and looking for a scapegoat. :rolleyes:

The authorities and a bunch of idiots that call themselves pilots as well........!:rolleyes:

As silly as the SQ 68 theory is, the offshoot is, too. SQ would have been squawking on SSR so there would be NO confusion on him.

GF

Timbo,

An, I'll bet on any given day, 30% of all crews, regardless of flying machine, exhibit one or more of Lemon's warning signs in the pax minds. Following the posts here and at PPRUNE would drive you nuts.

GF

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 1604299)

The pavement has to be thick enough to hold a widebody...big-airport runways are probably 6-10feet thick concrete.

So is the Mona Lisa...but who is going to buy it? There are a relatively small number of 777's in existence so there would be no way you could just re-paint it and use it.

I do at this point.

Not if it hit the water at high speed.

The debris/oil slick would have dissipated in the open ocean, possibly within hours before anyone started looking.

Because the perp(s) are fishfood.

Thanks for indulging me and responding to my post.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how/why this could have happened. It seems so strange that the person at the controls was able to do as much as he did and didn't have an end game. Conversely, if the end game was just to crash it, why would he fly for hours first?

As soon as I heard the transponder had been turned off, I believed it had to be something malicious. But even that doesn't add up with all the other evidence unless he could land it somewhere intact.

The Malaysians have to know much more than they're saying and that's super frustrating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by threeighteen (Post 1604540)

Closer to ~16 inches.

There's obviously a softer base underneath that, but not really a requirement for a single landing and maybe a departure.

The ~16" thickness is so that the runway doesn't have to be replaced so often. You could go much much thinner for a one-time use.

I've seen runways under construction, much deeper than 16 inches. True you could use a thinner runway but only up to a point...a big airplane would break through if it's too thin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ21 (Post 1604429)

I would also like to point out the fact that if there was some type of emergency on FLT 370 the crew would most likely have turned the plane to that exact 90 degree turn that happened. Here is why:

1) they were half way between Malaysia & Vietnam...Where would you have gone if there was an emergency in the middle of the night, over the ocean, half way between your airline home country or fly to a foreign country?

2) the turn was the shortest route to countless airports that were long enough to land a triple 7...just google Malaysia airport map & Malaysia Airline own website

3) pilots would know there countries landmarks/Airport SID if there was in fact a emergency vs flying to Vietnam with out a radio/vfr charts handy

4) Both pilots were from the northern area of Malaysia...did they learn to fly in that area making them more familiar?

5) Turning back to their takeoff airport would have been a 180 turn and appears to be a longer distance then going to the northern Malaysia airports

6) What was the traffic volume out of their takeoff airport that time of night = possible mid air collision vs going to the less traffic airports up north.

7) Company maintenance facility on Malaysia

8) Passengers custom issues would be less because they had already been in Malaysia vs going to Vietnam pax would need to obtain visas to leave the airport to go to a hotel.

9) Dealing with 230 passengers the next day to move them to their final destination...logistic would be much easier out of Malaysia.

That's what I thought until they built a flight plan to go to points west of Malaysia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1604495)

You'd go all nacraphiliac on the hot corpses, of course! :eek::eek::D

Classic projection.

FTD vs Simulator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantonaku (Post 1604470)

You can build a fully functional 777 sim in your basement

Not unless you've got $20 million or so and a lot more expertise than any one individual has.

What Cpt Shah had was an FTD (Flight Training Device), and presumably an uncertified one, at that.

He had access to a certified FTD at work, and to a real simulator. With 20,000 hours, he didn't NEED one at home; he was apparently a computer geek on the side.

I don't need to practice putting a weird flight plan into my FMS; I can do it in less than a minute if I have access to the charts (or even if I don't; the waypoints and airports are all stored in the FMS, anyway).

Checklists, on the other hand, are not secret, nor are they secured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 1604073)

Ground yourselves in a little reality.
Pilot: Was that Boeing 777 diverted deliberately? Not necessarily - CNN.com

That's all well and good. But the transponder was turned off which throws the whole thing out the window.

Wait a minute, I'm the shrink here. But, yeah, "projection" is the correct term :)