SyGunson

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.

SyGunson

That was the bogus story generated by the Malaysian Authorities, that it climbed to 45,000ft, turned west, then descended to 5,000ft "using terrain masking" and popped up again off Sumatra zig-zagging all over the Straits of Malacca before heading west climbing at 29,500ft.

No doubt it had a comic book hero at the controls.

Sink r8

Really? I'm looking at our Oceanic Driftdown Checklist, which have about 11 steps before making calls and touching the transponder.

jungle

You fell for that? There are volumes of UFO sightings you may want to look into. Any real aviation investigator or trial lawyer will tell you that eyewitness accounts are almost worthless, even those from otherwise well-qualified individuals.

Courtney Love claims she saw the wreckage from her aircraft complete with latlongs, are you going to buy that?

jungle

Big assumption, suicides don't always leave notes, terrorist do not try to take credit for failed missions, and nut cases always defy logic.

LightAttack

So this guy made the observation of a burning, intact plane, 30+ miles away, in the middle of the night? With what, Gen 3 NVG binoculars?

LightAttack

I hate to put it this way, but to back up what you are saying, I would find it highly unlikely a crew from Malaysia would deviate from the assigned flight path without notifying or getting permission from ATC. A US crew would have no problem immediately deviating in order to fight the problem (system failure, fire etc) and get pointed towards an emergency field, but I think it unlikely a crew from that part of the world would do something like that on their own.

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.

HIFLYR

Yea really my buddy 777 driver and myself were just talking about this we both agree first thing mayday. You really can't say mayday while the other guy is getting the drift down checklist.

Sink r8

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence, since it contradicts the first, but I'm going to assume to you're saying "mayday first" is the way to go. Maybe that's how you guys fly, and perhaps my procedures are incorrect. Our philosophy seems designed to prioritize aviating, then navigating, and communicating last. Seems pretty logical to me in cases where you have seconds of TUC, or a few knots to E/O speed. Not being sarcastic when I say this, but it seems pretty basic to me.

I am discussing contingencies in the context of being on the tracks, but I don't know exactly what coverage these guys were working under. Even if I was in VHF and radar contact, I'd perform a number of tasks first, before talking to anyone. They might only take 20-30 seconds, but there is a window there, where I would be preoccupied with things other than ATC.

With the very incomplete picture I have, it makes me wonder whether it's possible these guys started a few steps, got the aircraft started down, and passed out while within that window. Maybe the oxygen was not fully open, maybe they didn't put it on, maybe there was a fire. I have no idea, CNN definitely has no idea, and based on the unverified information available to the public, I'm pretty sure most of us have no idea.

iceman49

Wasn't there a 141 that crashed shortly after takeoff out of Sigonella, the crew had been overcome by chemical fumes, not sure if any calls were made.