Cyprus-Forum.com

[Demonax]

The peculiar thing is that passengers phones were still on days after the plane went missing.

Just because you can hear a ringing at your end it doesn't mean the person is receiving a call. It's just the network trying to find the phone.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadge ... 6856877396

[Oceanside50]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9 ... crash.html

this Air France fell out of the sky a few years ago, most of it sank to the bottom of the ocean where they needed robot submarines to locate there was debris and bodies floating on the surface. Can a plane crash from 30,000ft into the ocean stay intact and then sink? Can they pick up the black box signal from 15000 ft underwater?...

[Demonax]

The most rational and plausible explanation so far:

Malaysia Plane Fire

This Is The Most Plausible Theory For The Plane's Disappearance We've Heard Yet...

We're overthinking it. A few days ago, a former pilot named Chris Goodfellow articulated an entirely different theory. This theory fits the facts. And it's one of the most plausible yet:

Shortly after takeoff, as Malaysia 370 was flying out over the ocean, just after the co-pilot gave his final "Good night" sign-off to Malaysia air traffic control, smoke began filling the cockpit, perhaps from a tire on the front landing gear that had ignited on takeoff.

The captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: Turn the plane toward the closest airport so he could land.

The closest appropriate airport was called Pulau Langkawi. It had a massive 13,000-foot runway. The captain programmed the destination into the flight computer. The auto-pilot turned the plane west and put it on a course right for the runway (the same heading the plane turned to)

The captain and co-pilot tried to find the source of the smoke and fire. They switched off electrical "busses" to try to isolate it, in the process turning off systems like the transponder and ACARs automated update system (but not, presumably, the auto-pilot, which was flying the plane). They did not issue a distress call, because in a mid-air emergency your priorities are "aviate, navigate, communicate" — in that order. But smoke soon filled the cockpit and overwhelmed them (a tire fire could do this). The pilots passed out or died.

Smoke filled the cabin and overwhelmed and distracted the passengers and cabin crew... or the cockpit door was locked and/or the cockpit was filled with smoke, so no one could enter the cockpit to try to figure out where the plane was, how the pilots were, or how the plane might be successfully landed. (This would be a complicated task, even if one knew the pilots were unconscious and had access to the cockpit, especially if most of the plane's electrical systems were switched off or damaged)

With no one awake to instruct the auto-pilot to land, the plane kept flying on its last programmed course... right over Pulau Langkawi and out over the Indian Ocean. The engine-update system kept "pinging" the satellite. Eventually, 6 or 7 hours after the incident, the plane ran out of fuel and crashed.

This theory fits the facts. It makes sense. It explains the manual course change as well as the "pings" that a satellite kept hearing from the plane. It requires no fantastically brilliant pre-planning or execution or motives.

http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia ... z2wKTTwiNd

Edit: here is the pilot Chris Goodfellow's original article on why an electrical fire is the simplest and best explanation for what happened:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh ... ical-fire/

[B25]

Maybe, but, a crash would result in debris for which non has been found. The plane hitting water at say 300-400 mph would has smashed to bits surely.
So, wheres the debri???

[Demonax]

Maybe, but, a crash would result in debris for which non has been found. The plane hitting water at say 300-400 mph would has smashed to bits surely.
So, wheres the debri???

The vast and empty Indian Ocean most likely.

[Kikapu]

Mr. Chris Goodfellow is making way too many assumptions, and since there are no evidence to what exactly has happened to flight MH370, then his is as good as anyone else’s at this point in time, despite having few holes in his assumptions.

I hope Paphitis can correct me if I'm off track here.

Chris Goodfellow is focusing on the nose gear tyre burning on takeoff. It was a night takeoff, so you would think if the tyre got a flat and heated up due to friction and caught fire, others on the ground would have seen something. They did not.

The pilots would have felt the vibration if one or both the nose gear tyres were gone flat as well as indicators showing the tyre(s) were flat, which if it was at a point of no return for the take off, the captain would have told the tower and ask to return back to the airport after dumping some fuel to reduce the weight for landing. He did not.

But lets assume the pilots did feel the vibrations and the indicators showed that the tyre(s) were blown and continued the flight as normal, despite the tyre might be on fire, however unlikely that might be for them to fly to Beijing for another 6-7 hours just so not to dump and waste good fuel. As far as I know, the landing gear compartments are not pressurized, which means it gets freezing cold in there, hence people who try to stow away in landing gear compartments turn into popsicles upon arrival at temperatures minus 50+°C. So if it's not pressurized, then the landing gear compartment is sealed off to the rest of the aircraft, not unless the tyre fire has burned a hole through and smoke has gone into the cockpit as well as the whole aircraft, which means that the whole aircraft has also lost pressure. Why does he assume smoke ONLY found itself into the cockpit and nowhere else?

To have a fire you need three things, Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. At minus 50°C in a closed compartment, I don't think any fire can stay alight, not to mention it will be very hard for any Oxygen from outside to get into the closed gear compartment, so the fire would die out soon after take off and killed for good once the temperatures drop to freezing within minutes after takeoff.

Lets assume smoke is coming into the cockpit and the captain has decided to land at a different airport without telling anyone on the ground how ever unlikely that may be. You think he would have at least told the rest of the crew and his passengers for them to prepare an emergency landing. Don't you think some people would start using their phones to try and call their love ones? Chris Goodfellow also assumes that the captain or the co-pilot is no way involved in any foul play. How can he be so sure?

I still stand by my feelings that this aircraft has not crashed, but it safely landed somewhere. For what purpose is what I don't know.....yet.

[Pyrpolizer]

i don't think Iran would take such a risk. The peculiar thing is that passengers phones were still on days after the plane went missing.

Don't believe what they say. The user must first activate international roaming. If the phone REALLY rings then it is very easy for telephone companies to spot the area where it physically is. What the callers might have observed is either a false ringing tone, or an on purpose created one.
I actually believe that none of the information they make public is true. For example look at the conspiracy theory posted before. A plane simply can't reach not even half the way to Iran because it consumes multiple times as much fuel at altitudes that make it invisible to ground radars.

The key issue here is that the plane got lost at the exact position that radars could not see it.That's the ONLY truth they ever said.

[repulsewarrior]

indeed, everyone is learning a lot about their own capacities, given the scale of the search. some very valuable lessons are being learned, and there will be a movement to improve significantly our understanding of positioning, and systems assurance.

...i understand that the 'black box,' once an airplane has crashed, sends its own signal, which is as effective underwater as on land; is this true?

[Demonax]

Chris Goodfellow also assumes that the captain or the co-pilot is no way involved in any foul play. How can he be so sure?

I still stand by my feelings that this aircraft has not crashed, but it safely landed somewhere. For what purpose is what I don't know.....yet.

What evidence do you have that foul play was involved? After a week no group has claimed responsibility for any alleged hijack. No ransom demand has been made. And the evidence about the pilot's mental state is just speculation. It has led nowhere.

Instead you're assuming, like out of some James Bond film, that a huge plane with hundreds of passengers on board has managed to land without being seen and is being hidden in some remote location by master criminals pending what exactly? It makes no sense. You might as well say that the plane was abducted by aliens.

Of all the theories I've read the only one that fits with what we know is the theory of an onboard electrical fire that incapacitated the crew and the plane's systems. The plane eventually ran out of fuel and crashed into the ocean.

I'd be amazed if the plane suddenly turns up. However comforting that thought is.

[Paphitis]

indeed, everyone is learning a lot about their own capacities, given the scale of the search. some very valuable lessons are being learned, and there will be a movement to improve significantly our understanding of positioning, and systems assurance.

...i understand that the 'black box,' once an airplane has crashed, sends its own signal, which is as effective underwater as on land; is this true?

Yes it is true. However, the Emergency Locator Beacon which emits a signal to Satellites may not be able to penetrate very deep water.