On sixty minutes tonight they again pointed the finger at the pilot and claimed he configured the plane for a water landing.
The evidence they are basing it on is that the landing flap was in the down position. What I don't understand is why a Boeing 777 went to France a year ago with still no confirmation on its status. Why did it go to Airbus and not Boeing?
I have just returned from the Uk with MH and was suprised Malaysia now uses A380 and A330 for the long hauls and the boeing 777 are discontinued.
What I did witness was a number of system failures through the staff ranging from non properly heated food ,wrong food orders delivered, unvalible meals on the business class menu , Late departures , wrong departure amendments via email And the list goes on.
So again was it the Boeing plane at fault or something more to do with human failure?
Select to expand quotesouthace said...
So again was it the Boeing plane at fault or something more to do with human failure?
Until they find it (if...) , nobody knows. We can speculate, but the answer is still a mystery.
I've got a couple of pilot mates that capt international Australian flights, their consensus with very firm conviction is that the only answer is the pilot was or went loco. They explained all the technical details and timelines and there is no shadow of any doubt on their minds. They also told me that they frequent a professional pilot forum that had some posters who had direct information to data involved in the flight. Without having seen it I think 60mins just wanted to fill 15mins.
As for Boeing v Airbus it seems that youre reading too much into it.
For the company's reputation a faulty aircraft will be a better outcome than a rogue suicidal pilot hence possibly the reason they removed the 777s from there fleet.
Select to expand quoteslammin said..
I've got a couple of pilot mates that capt international Australian flights, their consensus with very firm conviction is that the only answer is the pilot was or went loco. They explained all the technical details and timelines and there is no shadow of any doubt on their minds. They also told me that they frequent a professional pilot forum that had some posters who had direct information to data involved in the flight. Without having seen it I think 60mins just wanted to fill 15mins.
As for Boeing v Airbus it seems that youre reading too much into it.
And I think the evidence retrieved from his home-made flight simulation backs this up. He flew a simulated flight from KL to the Southern Indian Ocean, mirroring the flight path of MH370. As more and more wreckage appears it will become more evident what state the aircraft was in, when it hit the water. i.e was it configured for a controlled landing and did it hit the water, gliding in a controlled manner or did it hit the water at high speed, totally out of control? What is odd, is if it is suicide, what a bizarre, tortuous way to go. He had a good chance of surviving the crash, if he was in control of the aircraft, then I guess he would have drowned in frigid waters after sitting in the cockpit for 8 hours previously. Why not fly the plane into the ocean killing yourself instantly, or better still put a gun in your mouth and blow your brains out instead of taking hundreds of people with you?
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning. Even if MH370 was 'controlled' in a water landing into the Southern Ocean and there was NO evidence of any break up nor oil/fuel slick, has got me stuffed.
The B-777 was considered one of the safest aircraft in history with no hull loss on record. You could argue that statistically that makes it due, but I reckon it was the pilot, and even that can have some very valid questions.
Select to expand quoteToph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
It's always surprised me that people refer to the landing in the Hudson as a miracle. Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible, plus with the perfect conditions he had, was it a miracle?
Select to expand quote
The B-777 was considered one of the safest aircraft in history with no hull loss on record. You could argue that statistically that makes it due, but I reckon it was the pilot, and even that can have some very valid questions.
The only puzzling thing was the two very credible witnesses that gave accurate information regarding a large jet on fire at high altitude, on the same bearing as MH370 (i.e China) and at a location and time that fitted with MH370. But I think it's unlikely a large fire could be put out and then all the crew and passengers collapse.
I put my money on lithium ion (or Lithium polymer) batteries.
www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/batteries-offer-best-explanation-for-mh370-crash-investigator/news-story/bc832d89069a9ae3c04302a3b3060eef
This would explain the sudden increase in altitude (trying to get to an oxygen-poor altitude to put the fire out), it's possible the fire disabled many of the systems on board, and the pilot tried to fly for as long as possible without many working systems.
Maybe video cameras on board airplanes ?
I just bought dash cam +reverse camera combo for my van- $70.Small upgrade to fifty million dollars plane, airlines should afford that less then one dollar per passenger on single flight and you have money back on investment.
Select to expand quoteZed said...Toph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
It's always surprised me that people refer to the landing in the Hudson as a miracle. Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible, plus with the perfect conditions he had, was it a miracle?
Just remember Zed all engines went out!!! so yeah to find a landing spot in a city and have zero fatalities yeah thats a miracle i think!
Select to expand quoteZed said...
Toph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible
Are they...
But besides that, my point was there is a very big difference between a river (imagine the Swan River at 6 in the morning) and the middle of the Southern Ocean.
I find it amazing that in this day in age of telecommunications and technology they had no idea where they lost it and where it ended up. Especially given the large American base in NT monitoring everything. Definitely something fishy going on. If you don't now where something is that left your watch how the hell are you going to know about something incoming.......clearly someone knows but for whatever reason the truth is not coming out. Airplanes have loads of tracking technology on them. Yet those initial search areas were very distant from one another which makes no sense to me.
Select to expand quoteToph said...Zed said...
Toph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible
Are they...
I know a few that are! The floats help them a bit though...
What is the better outcome?
Another crazy pilot. Very difficult/nearly impossible the completely prevent.
Fault in the plane. Plenty of 777s flying around. Chance of a repeat could exist unless the wreckage is found and cause identified.
It will probably be put down to one of lifes mysteries. It is a rare event regardless of the cause. My curiosity however does make me really want to know what happened.
I don't know what engines that plane had but I was reading somewhere that Rolls Royce engines when in flight are in continuous communication with R.R. computers/servers whatever and adjustments to the engine can be made remotely.
If this is the case surely the engine log on the land based computer would show the exact flight path of the plane.
Is this the case??
The Malaysians are very proud of there national airline as well as bringing a large amount of employment for the Malaysian people. The news of a rouge sucidal pilot would / has been very worrying to all involved and I suspect that is why they have been defending the pilot theroy.
On my flight from Adelaide to KI I was in seat A4 I noticed that the massive dude in seat A1 would stand at the cockpit door everytime the pilot would come out for a toliet time so I suspect they have some sort of messures in place now that a pilot can't lock the other pilot out. it was just 40 minutes out when the pilots started appearing for there toliet breaks. I belive since 911 only the pilot inside the cockpit could unlock the door. I think now they have a pin pad system on the outside.
I will not fly Malaysian again. Unfortantly I had way to many errors regarding my services in business class.
The rogue pilot theory seems the most probable, given the limited evidence. A precedent is EgyptAir Flight 990 that crashed in 1999. The first office shut down the engines when the pilot left the cockpit, repeatedly saying "I rely on God". Similarly, the co-pilot deliberately crashed Germanwings Flight 9525 in 2015.
Those perpetrators didn't care that they were killing hundreds of innocent people.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
The Malaysians are very proud of there national airline as well as bringing a large amount of employment for the Malaysian people. The news of a rouge sucidal pilot would / has been very worrying to all involved and I suspect that is why they have been defending the pilot theroy.
On my flight from Adelaide to KI I was in seat A4 I noticed that the massive dude in seat A1 would stand at the cockpit door everytime the pilot would come out for a toliet time so I suspect they have some sort of messures in place now that a pilot can't lock the other pilot out. it was just 40 minutes out when the pilots started appearing for there toliet breaks. I belive since 911 only the pilot inside the cockpit could unlock the door. I think now they have a pin pad system on the outside.
I will not fly Malaysian again. Unfortantly I had way to many errors regarding my services in business class.
Didnt know Malaysia Air flew to Kangaroo Island.................. 
Select to expand quoteTonz said...southace said..
The Malaysians are very proud of there national airline as well as bringing a large amount of employment for the Malaysian people. The news of a rouge sucidal pilot would / has been very worrying to all involved and I suspect that is why they have been defending the pilot theroy.
On my flight from Adelaide to KI I was in seat A4 I noticed that the massive dude in seat A1 would stand at the cockpit door everytime the pilot would come out for a toliet time so I suspect they have some sort of messures in place now that a pilot can't lock the other pilot out. it was just 40 minutes out when the pilots started appearing for there toliet breaks. I belive since 911 only the pilot inside the cockpit could unlock the door. I think now they have a pin pad system on the outside.
I will not fly Malaysian again. Unfortantly I had way to many errors regarding my services in business class.
Didnt know Malaysia Air flew to Kangaroo Island..................
Yes my typo KL
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
I think now they have a pin pad system on the outside.
Some indeed do SA.. But it still needs to be accepted or denied by the tech crew. If no response has been made by the pilots within a set amount of time then the door unlocks assuming both pilots are incapacitated.
After 911 is became a requirement to lock the cockpit doors where previously is was a regulation to keep them open for take-off and landing.
After the Germanwings, many airlines made it a policy to never have only ONE person alone in the cockpit, hence now you may see flight attendants going in when a plot leaves. Select to expand quoteTonz said..
Didnt know Malaysia Air flew to Kangaroo Island..................
I took about 3 reads of that too but assumed he meant KL... 
Select to expand quoteToph said..Zed said...
Toph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible
Are they...
But besides that, my point was there is a very big difference between a river (imagine the Swan River at 6 in the morning) and the middle of the Southern Ocean.
Yeah I realised that after I typed it. Probably massive rolling swells = massive impact, zero chance of landing it on one piece. Re the hudson landing, I don't want to denigrate the crew's achievements, they showed extremely cool heads considering the lack of time they had to make critical decisions and choosing the Hudson over a runway/road, I guess some may regard the actually landing of a jet plane on water as a miracle, I was trying to say that if conditions are perfect, it's not that difficult a task in the big scheme of things. I was on a Air Asia Airbus 330 a few years ago, flying to Phuket and were caught in a topical thunderstorm, had an aborted landing and had to have a go around. Landed safely, but IMO, phenomenal flying considering the conditions. Is that harder that landing on flat water, in daylight with zero wind? I don't know.. but like I said top effort from the Hudson river pilots.
Select to expand quoteZed said..Toph said..Zed said...
Toph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible
Are they...
But besides that, my point was there is a very big difference between a river (imagine the Swan River at 6 in the morning) and the middle of the Southern Ocean.
Yeah I realised that after I typed it. Probably massive rolling swells = massive impact, zero chance of landing it on one piece. Re the hudson landing, I don't want to denigrate the crew's achievements, they showed extremely cool heads considering the lack of time they had to make critical decisions and choosing the Hudson over a runway/road, I guess some may regard the actually landing of a jet plane on water as a miracle, I was trying to say that if conditions are perfect, it's not that difficult a task in the big scheme of things. I was on a Air Asia Airbus 330 a few years ago, flying to Phuket and were caught in a topical thunderstorm, had an aborted landing and had to have a go around. Landed safely, but IMO, phenomenal flying considering the conditions. Is that harder that landing on flat water, in daylight with zero wind? I don't know.. but like I said top effort from the Hudson river pilots.
As the expert said on 60 minutes if the plane broke up they would still be finding stuff floating around. I think it could have been possible to do some sort of sea controlled landing loosing the wings and engines but the fuselage still remained intaked. No one checked the sea state on the day it went missing it's possible it could have been flat calm.
another expert said today that the search will be suspended untill they get futher evidence on what area they should be searching due to the new revelations that it's highly likely the pilot is responsible. He also stated the search cost has so far cost the equivalent to half the price of just one 777 I think he said 60 million
Select to expand quotesouthace said..Zed said..Toph said..Zed said...
Toph said..
The A320 into the Hudson was considered a miracle and that was flown into a river on a dead calm morning.
Pilots are trained to land on water and planes have some design elements that mean a safe landing on water is possible
Are they...
But besides that, my point was there is a very big difference between a river (imagine the Swan River at 6 in the morning) and the middle of the Southern Ocean.
Yeah I realised that after I typed it. Probably massive rolling swells = massive impact, zero chance of landing it on one piece. Re the hudson landing, I don't want to denigrate the crew's achievements, they showed extremely cool heads considering the lack of time they had to make critical decisions and choosing the Hudson over a runway/road, I guess some may regard the actually landing of a jet plane on water as a miracle, I was trying to say that if conditions are perfect, it's not that difficult a task in the big scheme of things. I was on a Air Asia Airbus 330 a few years ago, flying to Phuket and were caught in a topical thunderstorm, had an aborted landing and had to have a go around. Landed safely, but IMO, phenomenal flying considering the conditions. Is that harder that landing on flat water, in daylight with zero wind? I don't know.. but like I said top effort from the Hudson river pilots.
As the expert said on 60 minutes if the plane broke up they would still be finding stuff floating around. I think it could have been possible to do some sort of sea controlled landing loosing the wings and engines but the fuselage still remained intaked. No one checked the sea state on the day it went missing it's possible it could have been flat calm.
another expert said today that the search will be suspended untill they get futher evidence on what area they should be searching due to the new revelations that it's highly likely the pilot is responsible. He also stated the search cost has so far cost the equivalent to half the price of just one 777 I think he said 60 million
I thought they'd found plane seats, window panes and parts from the seat based entertainment systems, suggesting it broke up on impact?
