Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostSomething like the behavior of a kitchen sink when you pull the stopper?
Comment
-
On the pings... Why were boats listening in on other frequencies and not the specification frequencies? This was asking for trouble in the first place, sorry to say and non-sensible and amateur. All other sounds/frequencies should have been filtered!! really more credibility down the drain on modern search techniques. no report can be trusted, so maybe even the report that the frequencies were incorrect is false.
Comment
-
One sequence that has always intrigued me for MH370 is the following:
1. There is a rapid depressurization event. Either a small structural failure or possibly a small bomb.
2. This event knocks out the ACARS and the transponder (where is the wiring for these two in the same place?) Communications wiring may or may not be affected by this event.
3. Rapid depressurization is a relatively rare event, but since it is not that uncommon, it is well trained for.
4. Pilots would be busy putting on their oxygen masks and preparing for an emergency descent. Communication would be secondary.
5. Now we combine this with another rare, but not unknown event: the pilot's oxygen system does not work. Maybe somebody left a valve closed during servicing or maybe a leak caused the oxygen quantity to drop to zero, or maybe one or both masks was defective. I know they are tested, but pilot oxygen system failures are not so uncommon (just google it).
6. The expected pilot action due to the rapid depressurization would be starting a rapid descent most likely combined with a turn back to base.
7. At altitude, without oxygen, it would only take a few seconds before the pilots would be losing awareness. Since they think that they are getting oxygen from their masks, they would be focused on following the rapid descent procedures. They would not be thinking of taking any other action (like getting a portable oxygen bottle). It takes minutes to get down to 10,000 feet. But without oxygen, it would be too late. Within a few more seconds at altitude and the pilots would lose consciousness.
8. The passenger oxygen system is different from the pilots oxygen system. With the scenario above, assuming that a rapid descent had been programmed in before losing consciouness, the passengers would be OK. Only the pilots would be dead or incapacitated.
9. Admittedly we are combining two relatively rare, but not that uncommon events. This scenario would explain the loss of transponder, the loss of ACARS, the lack of communication, the unexpected U turn, and the rapid descent.
10. Now we have a Helios or perhaps more correctly an Airplane scenario. No pilots, but the passengers and cabin crew are OK.
11. Scary situation for the passengers. But you can bet that some of them (maybe there was a private pilot or two on board?) would be trying to do something. Certainly if I had been a passenger I would rather die trying than just sit around.
12. This "passenger intervention" on the flight deck could explain the reported garbled radio call to a military base, and explain the subsequent "strange" behaviour of the plane. Whatever they did, they made it turn a few times and change altitude a few times.
13. As large as the ocean is, and as much as I respect Inmarsat's analysis efforts, I think that not finding any floating debris to date indicates that the plane has crashed on land. At some point in the future, the debris will be found completely hidden by the foliage on a remote jungle mountainside somewhere.
My thoughts.
potholeYou just can't avoid the potholes.
Comment
-
Well, everything that is not impossible is possible however unlikely. But take into account:
You are talking not of 2 independent failures, but 3 of them:
- The explosion or structural failure that damaged the ACARS and transponder (but not, for example, the sat-link or anything essential that would allow the plane to keep flying for hours).
- The failure of the PIC's O2 system.
- The failure of the FO's O2 system (which is independent from the PIC's one).
So, an explosion or structural failure perhaps happens in one every some dozens of thousand of flights, the same goes for a failure in the PIC's O2 system, and the same in the FO's O2 system. The chances that the three failures will happen at the same time are as close to zero as it gets. However, if that is what happened, the chances that it happened is 100%. Anything that brought this plane down would very likely be considered highly improbable, so I won't go as far as say "no, this is impossible".
But there are other problems:
- You are saying "that explains the initial rapid descent". However, there is no confirmed report of a descent at all. So that doesn't explain any known descent. But it is not known either that they did not descend, so the descent could have happened.
- While of course we all have doubts about the accuracy of the Inmarsat estimation of the routes, something that can be hardly disputed is that the plane keep "pinging" with the satellite for many hours after the loss of contact, more time than what the plane would endure unless it was at high cruise altitude. It's hard, but not impossible, to reconcile this fact with your theory. You can say that after descending and finding nowhere to land, the "dummy pilot" that happened to be at the controls climbed again to cruise altitude, only to loss consciousness minutes later (together with the rest of the persons aboard) due to hypoxia.
- The lack of contact by any means: Radio, sat phone, cell phone, I don't know if pax in business and first class had Internet access too...
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by starchyme View PostOn the pings... Why were boats listening in on other frequencies and not the specification frequencies? This was asking for trouble in the first place, sorry to say and non-sensible and amateur. All other sounds/frequencies should have been filtered!! really more credibility down the drain on modern search techniques. no report can be trusted, so maybe even the report that the frequencies were incorrect is false.
I have already learned in these forums that, unfortunately, attempting any rational debate with a conspiracy theorist is impossible because they act with a very high degree of confirmation bias:
1- Everything that fits my theory, great.
2- Everything that would be needed to fin my theory but has not come to light, they are hiding it.
3- Everything that doesn't fit my theory, is intentionally false, fabricated, manipulated or tampered with.
Another typical attitude of a conspiracy theorist is that they start pretending not being a conspiracy theorist (hey guys, excuse me, what do you think of this little thing that doesn't seem to fit so well?) and they grow into.. well, just go and look the 9/11 thread that you yourself started.
So not only that I will not get onto this (again, you already deceived me in the 9/11 thread), but I hope that the moderators will stop this nonsense just here, before it escalates into another 9/11 or Polish AF-1 conspiracy thread.
Hi Brian. When does your shift start?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Now,
What disturbs me in the fly-back-across-Malaysia theory is that not one cellphone of all available in the cabin was switched on / checked in on any of the cellular networks during the passage across the Malay peninsula. Let's discuss the probability of that, against the background of human behaviour under stress.. If there was a cabin decompression, oxy masks deployed and the 'plane turning back I would expect there to be a massive amount of attempts to call home or at least send text messages. Just review the 9/11 events for reference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostSince evidently you don't seem to believe that they did it by mistake, or that what they did is correct, that means that you are getting us again in the realm of a conspiracy..........
Hi Brian. When does your shift start?If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostSince evidently you don't seem to believe that they did it by mistake, or that what they did is correct, that means that you are getting us again in the realm of a conspiracy theory.
I have already learned in these forums that, unfortunately, attempting any rational debate with a conspiracy theorist is impossible because they act with a very high degree of confirmation bias:
1- Everything that fits my theory, great.
2- Everything that would be needed to fin my theory but has not come to light, they are hiding it.
3- Everything that doesn't fit my theory, is intentionally false, fabricated, manipulated or tampered with.
"the illusion of explanatory depth"
in many instances people believe they understand how something works when in fact their understanding is superficial at best.
a tendency to take mental short cuts when making decisions or assessments
There are many great examples of the illusion of explanatory depth to be found in those 9/11 "inside job" videos. There are even some in Pothole's post above. Since the disappearance of MH-370 many people have been fooled by hackneyed 'technical' theories posited by a supposed expert who, to the learned, obviously betray a lack of depth in technical understanding. The 'fire in the wheelwell' theory is a great example of this, and several people have thrown that one at me in bars lately.
"the illusion of explanatory depth" is particularly powerful. Basically, if someone explains a theory in what appears to be technical explanatory depth, many people will accept it as knowledge and truth. Most people, suffering themselves from a 'cognitive miser' thought process, choose to accept this illusion without pursuing greater understanding of the tichnical circumstances.
Hence, we have the illustrious and neverending conspiracy theories that insult our intelligence, disrespect those lost in the tragedies, and distract from the process of true understanding.
Starcyhme, you could be a better informed, less susceptible person if you care to research these human factors. Don't be a cognitive miser! Start here:
and here...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Passion for flying View PostNow,
What disturbs me in the fly-back-across-Malaysia theory is that not one cellphone of all available in the cabin was switched on / checked in on any of the cellular networks during the passage across the Malay peninsula. Let's discuss the probability of that, against the background of human behaviour under stress.. If there was a cabin decompression, oxy masks deployed and the 'plane turning back I would expect there to be a massive amount of attempts to call home or at least send text messages. Just review the 9/11 events for reference.
Hi Brian , good to see you .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostConfirmation Bias plays a role later on, when their treasured ideas are challenged, but initially two other human factors are essential in recruiting the conspiracy theory proselyte:
"the illusion of explanatory depth"
and... "cognitive miser" theory"
Once they just start forming a mental image even without realizing of that, they start putting more weight on everything that helps this mental image than to things that contradict it. This has the effect of the mental image to become stronger, clearer, more convincing, and the person start to take a conscious position towards it.
It has been demonstrated with studies on focus groups how this works.
By presenting to two audiences the same evidences, opinions, and expert analysis, but in different order, each audience tended to support the position that matched the data presented first. When explaining why they took the position they did, they put much more weight on the first set of information and to discard the pieces of info in the second set, be it judging its credibility, interpreting it in a way that was more favorable to their position, or ignoring it altogether. So the confirmation bias starts before a position is consciously taken.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
Comment