Posted on 03/19/2014 7:28:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Disinformation. Nothing more, nothing less. The people doing this were engaged before the plane took off or have been engaged since the plane went missing.
There are actors in this who are attempting to prevent the truth from coming out.
A debunking by another Reddit poster (Chris Goodfellow debunking)**i apologize if this has been posted, cats are driving me batty today
“SIGH I don’t know who Chris Goodfellow is, but just having a “Class 1 License in Multi-engine planes” and 20 years experience does NOT qualify him to speak with authority on 777 systems and trans-oceanic airline operations. Heck, when I learned to fly in Canada, I had the same certifications. Mr. Goodfellow misses the mark on real-world operations, as evidenced by statements he makes in this article.
As an MD88 Captain for a major US airline, I have some pretty good experience to draw from but I certainly wouldn’t want to stray into the realm of 777 systems and become another self-professed “expert” in the speculation frenzy we are seeing with regards to this incident. But some things are just really basic, and Mr. Goodfellow makes quite a few assumptions.
Where do I start?
“When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport”. Um, why? Why can you make that statement? There are a whole host of reasons why the aircraft FMS was programmed to make a turn. You say yourself just a paragraph or two later that “There is no point speculating further until more evidence surfaces...”. Aren’t you in fact “speculating”? We have far too many “speculators” as it is. The fact is, we can speculate all day as to the “who” and “why”, but it’s all pointless. The fact is, the aircraft turned west, away from it’s planned northerly track. Why? It could be many things, but you can’t say with any certainty that “he was heading for an airport”.
Mr. Goodfellow states that an electrical fire first response is to “pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one”. Actually, the first response is to don the oxygen mask and put on the smoke goggles (or some aircraft have masks/goggles in one unit). Mr. Goodfellow says “Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks but this is a no-no with fire.” GOOD LORD. He has NO IDEA what he’s talking about. What are the pilots supposed to do? Hold their breath and work the checklist?? He is probably confusing the use of PASSENGER oxygen masks which, in the event of a fire in the cabin, we are trained to NOT manually deploy. Why? Because PASSENGER oxygen masks MIX cabin air with oxygen...thus, passengers would breath smoke regardless, and you’re just providing oxygen to an environment where fire exists...that is bad. But with COCKPIT oxygen systems, the masks are FORCED PRESSURE and 100% oxygen is available. Yes, you ABSOLUTELY don the oxygen masks THEN work on isolating the source of the fire/smoke. Otherwise, the pilots are breathing smoke and, in no-time, the entire flight is doomed (he should know that.)
As far as isolating the source of the fire, referring to the Boeing checklist, the pilot will begin to isolate SYSTEMS, as directed, and try to isolate the source of the flames. This process does not involve “pulling busses” but rather in isolating systems through directing power sources and pulling circuit breakers. (”Pulling busses” is not even lexicon we use in our industry).
Mr. Goodfellow states that a hijack code (which exists) or “even a transponder code off by one digit would alert ATC that something was wrong”. Um, good try. ATC would simply ask the flight to correct the code. But being unable to communicate with the flight would preclude this, and having one digit off would be the least of their concerns. If the pilot can move the transponder to “one digit off”, he could certainly enter the code for the hijack (these aren’t Cessna 172 transponders, Mr. Goodfellow.) He adds “Every good pilot knows keying an SOS over the mike always is an option.” The vast majority of pilots would never consider this, as morse code is never used in communication, other than listening to a code (with the key displayed on an approach chart) is used to identify navigation frequencies for approaches, but not in the 777....that is not required. It automatically identifies the frequency for the pilots, and displays the identification on their EFIS screens (basically TV screens that display their instrumentation). Thus, 777 pilots rarely, if ever, deal with morse code, yet alone think about “transmitting” it via microphone clicks. He further adds “Even three short clicks would raise an alert”. Um, yeah. No way.
Mr. Goodfellow states “Disabling the ACARS is not easy, as pointed out”. WRONG. Pulling two or three circuit breakers disables the entire system. In fact, we routinely do it to reset the ACARS unit if it is not receiving or transmitting properly on the ground before pushback. Again, a bogus statement.
Mr. Goodfellow will “accept for a minute” that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000’ in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen”. That is completely laughable. The service ceiling of the 777 is 43,000’. The cabin pressurization system is designed to maintain a “maximum differential” of so-many psi (the difference between the outside air pressure and the inside-cabin air pressure) up to the service ceiling. A standard airliner will hold somewhere in the area of 8000’ cabin pressure up to it’s service ceiling. Going above that (in this case, 45,000’) will NOT “quell a fire” with lower oxygen amounts. What WOULD happen is the pressurization system would raise the cabin altitude just a hair, in order to maintain the maximum cabin differential psi. No pilot would even CONSIDER taking an airplane to a HIGHER altitude in such a situation. It’s preposterous! We know (a) it would have no effect on “quelling” a fire and (b) we want to get on the GROUND when a fire exists (it’s our worst enemy in the air). You state this yourself later: “Fire in an aircraft demands one thing: Get the machine on the ground as soon as possible.” So why veer off into off-the-wall speculation and even consider it?
While we are talking about altitudes, as I mentioned, the service ceiling of the 777 is 43,000’. Going above the service ceiling is just downright dangerous. Why? Because the aircraft is not designed to be able to perform at those altitudes. Mr. Goodfellow got this one thing right in that doing so would put the pilots in a situation where going too FAST would result in a “mach buffet” situation where the airflow over the wing would be going so fast that it would separate, and thus the overspeed would create a loss of lift. Going too SLOW would of course mean the wing would stall. Thus the pilots would have to maintain aircraft speed in such a small range that it is entirely too dangerous. Many pilots refer to this as “the coffin corner”....the airspeed range is so precise that safety is sacrificed...thus the reference to the “coffin”. Thus any pilot with any experience in jet aircraft would NEVER consider taking the aircraft above the certified flight “envelope”. And if you’ve got a fire or other emergency on board, why on earth would you do that? As to WHY it was up there (supposedly), I will not “speculate”.
I could go on and on further. What’s my point? The point is this: There are WAY TOO MANY “talking head” experts who desperately want to be part of solving this mystery and, in the process, get their two minutes of fame. The problem is they just create more confusion, misinformation and wild-haired theories. We all need to stick to what we know and let the experts, who have all the information, work to solve the mystery. The hysteria that has ensued since the disappearance of the jet has gotten to fever pitch. It does nobody any good and, I would say, does a great deal of harm.
And lastly, if you say “we need to not speculate” and then you SPECULATE, you really aren’t deserving of any credibility”.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/20sasb/very_concise_debunk_of_chris_goodfellows_theory/
Source is former FAA spokesman Scott Brenner. It is likely he knows more than we do?
Highlights from the latest press conference in Malaysia:
Referred to as a search and rescue op.
No left turn prior to “Good night”.
No waypoints entered beyond IGARI to Beijing, the ones for the scheduled flight.
Maldives sighting not true.
There were deletions from the Captain’s home flight simulator, they are working to retrieve them.
*****
I think the waypoints comment applies to before the diversion.
They would not know about waypoints after that, because of ACARS being disabled.
That fact makes foul play a certainty.
There’s no “tower” out in the middle of the South China Sea.
******************
Once you have the “fly the plane” stuff reasonably taken care of you broadcast on 121.5 in the blind and maybe “ident” on the transponder to let any tower/center that can pick it up get your immediate location. There is a very good chance another plane could hear you ...
“It’s not always easy to cry help when you’re suddenly stuck with a real crisis, or passed out unawares.”
But if, *if* the last radio contact was after the aircraft had begun or made the U-turn, it would have been common sense (and common courtesy) to take that opportunity to tell the tower that you are having an in-flight emergency bad enough to RTB (return to base), and would you please roll the fire trucks...
I haven’t been paying close attention to all the little bits of evidence that are cropping up, but I’m going to wait until someone with American credentials confirms them before I go hog wild on theories.
Again, anything goes.
These guys were flying over the sea at night. There are better circumstances pilots have been in when they lost their way. Unbeknownst to them.
Too many assumptions are being made here. It is a complete crap shoot when an incident has actually happened, not if.
The closest airport from the point where the transponder stopped, and they made their turn left, would have been Sultan Mahmud (TGG), on the north coast of the Malaysian peninsula. Reportedly, that was where the co-pilot did his 777 training. E.g., if something as nasty as a fire, happened, TGG would have been the destination of choice. If they needed to jettison fuel, they could have done it just off coast, then come ashore and land.
If that's true, the change of course should have been visible to ATC working with secondary radar, as well as to FlightAware.
And indeed, your link contradicts that assertion:
The Thai military was receiving normal flight path and communication data from the Boeing 777-200 on its planned March 8 route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing until 1:22 a.m., when it disappeared from its radar.
IOW, as previously reported, they didn't turn until after the transponder was turned off.
>> Once you have the “fly the plane” stuff reasonably taken care of you broadcast on 121.5 in the blind <<
I see what you mean. So probably, either they didn’t want to transmit on 121.5, or they simply couldn’t manage to do so.
(1) My 'guess' is so far, unique. I don't like being 'just like everyone else'.
(2) Based on some of theories still being considered, mine is really no less possible. Between a black hole, somewhere on the moon, and Palau We, I actually think mine is more possible.
Thank you for the response, and the information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.