|
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1610337)
So you use a few examples where structural failure DID NOT cause the loss of the aircraft and then want "conclusive proof" that it would happen?
So if you were to find some examples where structural failure DID cause the loss of the aircraft would you accept that as conclusive? :rolleyes: You seem to like research. I'll start you off with China Airlines 611 and JAL 123. EasternATC nails it with respect to your ideas of psychology 101. Always and never seldom work out. Try and remember that when you write your story. It is a possibility that the airframe would break up but not an absolute. We all know with JAL 123 that the real problem there was loss of most of the tail fin and all hydraulics to flying controls. With CAL 611 that was not just a mere decompression, but a failure to correctly stitch back the belly after a tailstrike concealed under a lap plate. That aircraft did not merely decompress, it unzipped. That is not a relevant example either because that was not an incident where the aircraft continued to fly. What we are debating here is whether an aircraft that survives the initial decompression event would stay together structurally for another 7+ hours? It is not 100% certain it would, but it is not 100% certain it would not. It was you who demanded it was 100% likely to break up and I cited four examples where aircraft which survived horrific structural impairment continued to fly. At 17:19 Zulu MH370 turned over IGARI from the previous 25 degree track to 40 degrees suggesting it was taking a shortcut to BIBAN bypassing BITOD. Last airspeed given by the transponder was 471 knots at 35,000. The reconstruction of INMARSAT data concluded it continued into the southern Indian Ocean in steady flight "above 30,000ft" and at an average 450kt. That might be a clue that all else being equal it suffered a 20kt decrease in speed. |
Originally Posted by SyGunson
(Post 1610523)
Thank you for highlighting my point.
It was you who demanded it was 100% likely to break up and I cited four examples where aircraft which survived horrific structural impairment continued to fly. And it wasn't ME who demanded anything - - - so your reporting continues on an inaccurate path ;) You were asked in a previous post if you were a professional pilot (or had been). Will you be sharing your experience with us? |
Originally Posted by EasternATC
(Post 1610290)
Just so I understand, you're perfectly willing to consider a novel set of physical circumstances and outcomes, but the people involved must always act in a certain, preconceived way?
|
Originally Posted by jungle
(Post 1610314)
You are correct, there is no evidence of terrorism.
There is also no evidence of aircraft malfunction.... (abridged) Not quite so. There was a sighting by oil rig worker Mike Mackay, on Song Mercur oil rig, who noted at the requisite time an aircraft west of himself in the vicinity of Ca Mau peninsula (circa waypoint BIBAN) on fire for 10 or 15 seconds before the flames went out. He said it continued to fly and did not seem to deviate left [south] or right [north] either coming towards him or going away. He said it was about 70 kilometres distant. http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...ps03ad7272.jpg http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...psd9ebf4f9.jpg |
Originally Posted by F4E Mx
(Post 1610344)
If you did have a fire in the cockpit you would not necessarily have a structural failure. You would expect the pilots to depressurize the aircraft, descend, and head for the nearest suitable airport. The aircraft did descend, and did a 120 degree left turn in the general direction of an airport with a 12,500 foot runway.
No doubt it had a comic book hero at the controls. |
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
(Post 1610491)
99% of the time there is time for at least one mayday mayday call out flying over the ocean that would be the first thing I would do.
|
Originally Posted by SyGunson
(Post 1610535)
Not quite so. There was a sighting by oil rig worker Mike Mackay, on Song Mercur oil rig, who noted at the requisite time an aircraft west of himself in the vicinity of Ca Mau peninsula (circa waypoint BIBAN) on fire for 10 or 15 seconds before the flames went out. He said it continued to fly and did not seem to deviate left [south] or right [north] either coming towards him or going away. He said it was about 70 kilometres distant.
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...ps03ad7272.jpg http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...psd9ebf4f9.jpg Courtney Love claims she saw the wreckage from her aircraft complete with latlongs, are you going to buy that? |
Originally Posted by SyGunson
(Post 1610530)
I'll tell you what I would consider is a suicide note.
|
Originally Posted by SyGunson
(Post 1610535)
Not quite so. There was a sighting by oil rig worker Mike Mackay, on Song Mercur oil rig, who noted at the requisite time an aircraft west of himself in the vicinity of Ca Mau peninsula (circa waypoint BIBAN) on fire for 10 or 15 seconds before the flames went out. He said it continued to fly and did not seem to deviate left [south] or right [north] either coming towards him or going away. He said it was about 70 kilometres distant.
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...ps03ad7272.jpg http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...psd9ebf4f9.jpg |
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
(Post 1610491)
99% of the time there is time for at least one mayday mayday call out flying over the ocean that would be the first thing I would do. Very few malfunctions would take out all three radios, but going silent is the one of the things that can happen during a hijack or crew involvement.
Most US crews, facing (for instance) a fire, would immediately turn towards the emergency field, work the problem and tell ATC what they were doing when they had time (which could be a quick call simultaneously and "I'll get back to you in a minute"). That is why it makes sense that the turn was deliberate. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:19 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands