3 ms·
One big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a transponder was switched off before the pilots last radio contact. The pilots would have
by johnw 13y ago
One big hole in this theory is that its been widely reported [1] that a transponder was switched off before the pilots last radio contact. The pilots would have had no reason to pull the breakers before the last communication if they weren't already aware of a fire.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...
- wikiburner 13y agoDamage from an electrical fire on board could possibly explain the first transponder going out, even if the crew wasn't aware of the fire yet.
- libria 13y agoSo, is there a publically traded company that makes fireproof transponders? Because I have this hunch...
- gnaffle 13y agoIf so, they would probably already have seen other faults as well, and at the very least have a warning about the transponder being disabled. Their last communication made no mention of any problems.
- leoc 13y agoYou'd imagine that the transponder going out would immediately bring up a fault warning in the cockpit, though, even if the fire itself had somehow not been detected. But I suppose a sufficiently bad bug in the flight systems might be invoked to cover that.
- cornholio 13y agoAnother massive hole is that the closest airport ,at the point where communication was lost, was Sultan Mahmud in Kuala Terengganu. Long runway, approach directly from sea, can accommodate a 747 according to Wikipedia. There is no justification to go to Langkawi which is on the other side of the Malay Peninsula.
- nl 13y agoIt's quite possible to think of reasons why they decided on that course of action. I'm no expert, but here's some based on previous incidents: They wanted to burn off fuel. There was a fault with the rudder There was a fault with the control system They pilots were dead, and the autopilot was doing something off.
- cornholio 13y agoIn an emergency, the safest way to burn fuel is to reach the closest airport and then circle it. Not head to a more distant airport which you might not reach because of the very emergency. All hypotheses will invalidate the major premise: that the pilots chose that particular heading not randomly, but in a calculated attempt to reach the nearest airport because of an emergency. Basically, no matter where the plane would have turned, if you draw a long enough line you will find an airport. But that does not explain anything.
- ams6110 13y agoIn a dire emergency, you would just dump the fuel and not try to burn it off.
- nickff 13y agoOr even land heavy.
- deaks 13y agoExcept, the 777 does not have fuel dumping. It was not required for certification because it meets the minimum required climb rate with an engine failure after takeoff at Max Gross Weight.
- gergles 13y agoYes it does: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/4/7/2365747.jpg http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/4/7/23... Look at the top center, at the "Fuel Jettison" switches. (This is a 777-200 non ER, but I doubt the ER model would remove this feature.)
- prodev42 13y agothere was also rumor captain grow up around that airport. i suggest research his childhood schools if possible.