A seasoned pilot deploys Occam’s razor, and comes up with the only plausible theory that makes sense of all the known facts so far: smoke/fire in the cockpit
A seasoned pilot, Chris Goodfellow, has given the most plausible explanation so far of what probably happened to the Malaysian plane which ‘disappeared’: an onboard fire.
He points out that this, and not a hijack, would be the reason why the plane turned abruptly and began flying in the opposition direction: to reach the nearest runway.
As a contemporary of the missing captain, in terms of age and training, Goodfellow has been able to use his aviation experience to deploy Occam’s razor on the known facts, in a way that hasn’t been done so far (unless I have missed it). There has been too much “over-thinking”, he said. In his view as an old pilot, he explained, the most immediately apparent and obvious reason for a sudden about-turn would not be terrorism but an on-board crisis which made it necessary to head for the nearest airport which, in this case, lay behind and not ahead.
Older pilots had it drummed into them throughout their training, Goodfellow said, to be aware of the nearest airport runway – left, right, ahead and behind – at all times during the course of a flight, so that if trouble occurs, they don’t have to stop and think. That captain, he said, was heading for the nearest airport.
This is the scenario Goodfellow describes.
Just after the final contact between the co-pilot and air traffic control, smoke began to enter the cockpit, possibly from a tyre on the front landing-gear which ignited on take-off.
The captain did what he had been trained to do, and immediately turned the plane towards the closest airport: Pulau Langkawi. He programmed the destination into the flight computer and the autopilot turned the plane west, putting it on course for Pulau Langkawi. This, in fact, was the direction in which it was headed.
While the plane flew on auto-pilot, the captain and his co-pilot switched off electrical ‘busses’ to try to isolate the source of the fire, in the process turning off the transponder and ACARs automated update system. No distress call was sent out because of the priority rule of “aviate, navigate, communicate”.
Smoke filled the cockpit and the captain and co-pilot passed out or died of smoke inhalation.
At this point, smoke would also have begun to fill the cabin, but in any case, with nobody able to land the plane, it would have kept flying on autopilot right over Pulau Langkawi and out onto the Indian Ocean, while “pinging” the satellite, until it ran out of fuel and crashed into those deepest waters.
While the search parties were busy scouring a different sea beneath the point where the plane officially lost contact, the wrecked plane sank beyond view and the floating debris was completely dispersed on the currents.
The captain and co-pilot on whom so much suspicion has fallen, and whose lives are being picked apart, might well have been the heroes of the piece, who died a horrible, frightening death along with their 227 passengers.
It doesn’t even bear contemplation: a smoke-filled passenger plane with 239 dead or dying people on board, travelling through the air on autopilot for seven hours, until it runs out of fuel, falls into the sea, and disappears. Truly a contemporary horror.
45 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3#ixzz2wLD0g01V
In July of 2011 another 777-200 had a cockpit fire. Details here, and pictures further down: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7/0000&opt=0
While the aircraft would not continue to fly if it was damaged as the Egyptair aircraft, that one was on the ground. If it was flying the 500+ km/h windstream would help dissipate the heat immensely, perhaps maintaining the integrity of the airframe.
This makes sense but would a plane on fire continue to fly for seven hours? It could have been some other grave accident and not a fire.
Everyone dead? Who put out the ‘fire’ for another seven hour flight?
Quite plausible, but then it would mean that the aircraft would have crashed in a relatively large mass not too far from where it caught fire. It couldn’t have gone far. Some debris would have been sighted by now.
Very plausible except for one uncomfortable fact that in my opinion brings the whole theory crashing down. The transponder was turned off before the crew made their last contact with ATC.
It is unthinkable that a crew with a fire on board, having already started to deal with the fire would then calmly tell ATC “All right, good night then”.
[Daphne – Actually nobody is sure about that. There is conflicting information as to whether it was turned off before or after. Every report I read seems to be different.]
Let’s clarify the time-line, using Malaysian local time.
The following facts have not been subject of conflicting information.
1. 0041 – Flight takeoff from Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
2. 0119 – “All right, good night,” last verbal communication from MH370 with Malaysian Air Traffic Control – voice now attributed by Malaysian authorities to co-pilot.
3. 0121 – Malaysian Air Traffic Control looses contact with plane, transponders shut off.
4. 0215 – Malaysian military radar records last known position of the plane in the Strait of Malacca/Andaman Sea to the West of Malaysia.
5. 0811 – Last ping received from the plane as recorded by the Inmarsat satellite.
The confusion revolved around the time the ACARS was switched off. ACARS sends information from the plane to land systems every 30 minutes.
The plane’s ACARS sent a scheduled bulletin at 0107. The next bulletin was due at 0137, but it never arrived. Malaysian Airlines had initially said that ACARS was switched off at 0107 (because that was the time of the last bulletin), and therefore 14 minutes before transponders were switched off, interpreting this as a sign that there was no catastrophic event.
But this was a wrong interpretation of facts. The correct conclusion should have been that ACARS was switched off SOME TIME BETWEEN 0107 and 0137. It is therefore possible that ACARS shut down with the transponders at 0121, leaving a catastrophic event at 0121 a possibility.
Had the transponder been turned off before the last voice contact, air traffic control would have intervened.
The airspace that they were flying in is RVSM (reduced vertical separation minima) airspace that requires particular equipment and procedures.
Air traffic control would have been compelled to descend the flight to 29000 feet or below.
This exchange would have featured in the investigation. Nothing was mentioned of this, which means that the transponder must have stopped transmitting after the last voice transmission.
@confused.
The transponders were switched off at 0121. The last verbal communication had taken place at 0119.
Which means that the transponders were switched off AFTER the last verbal communication. Makes sense.
But that’s only 2 minutes after. Suggests to me that there was a plan, that once the verbal communication with Malaysian ATC is concluded, the disappearance of the plane will begin.
As I see it, the situation was under control, and who was in control wanted to avoid entering the Vietnam airspace. Once identified and admitted to Vietnamese ATC, any unusual manouvre by the plane would have alerted the Vietnamese. I suspect that out of all countries in that area, Vietnam would have some very capable (military) radar equipment and surveillance, which would have tracked the movements of the plane immediately, and they might have alerted the neighbouring countries.
@ciccio
Normally when reaching boundaries between one country and another there are large areas where the radar system of one country overlaps a significant area of the neighbouring country.
The Vietnamese would have known and seen the aircraft on their screens well before the boundary point.
That said, what I saw on CNN today, whereby it is being reported that the route change was programmed 12 minutes prior to the last communication, changes things considerably in my mind.
There are just too many different pieces of information coming to the fore bit by bit, that it is rendering it virtually impossible to build a reasonable picture. I am beginning to suspect that information was intentionally held back not only by the Malaysians but also other entities. Why I do not know. I am at a loss as to what to think.
There is still the mystery of the phones still ringing and no one picking them up.
Considering the fact that phones are usually switched off during a flight (or put on flight mode, in which case no calls can be made or received), this still does not explain what happened exactly.
The mystery of the phones has been explained, even in some comments on this website.
As for those phones which were switched off, some phones ring even when switched off – you can ask Franco Debono about that.
Yeah but why did it go up to 45,000? And how can the tyre ignite at take-off, and the fire appear 40 minutes after it begins? And as curious said, how can a plane on fire go on for 7hrs?
How likely is it that a fire could be so intense that it would kill the crew and all the passengers but not damage the autopilot or other flight systems?
[Daphne – In a fire, it is generally not the fire itself that kills people. The smoke kills them ahead of that. People who die in fires usually die of smoke inhalation, not burning. This is just an observation.]
For the fire to generate enough smoke to kill the crew and passengers there must have been a fire with an intensity that would have caused catastrophic damage to the plane’s systems. This would have lead to a crash and debris floating on the sea along the route where the original search took place.
I don’t find this scenario very credible.
Russia “Puzzled” Over Malaysia Airlines “Capture” By US Navy
http://indiandefence.com/threads/russia-puzzled-over-malaysia-airlines-capture-by-us-navy.43999/
This still leaves more questions than answers in my mind:
Does the front landing gear lie directly under the cockpit? (Maybe yes).
Isn’t the cockpit and passenger cabin a sealed space that would preclude the entry of smoke from the tyres of landing gear?
Would the tyres burn at an altitude of 35,000 feet, with minimal oxygen, freezing temperatures, and while they are enclosed in their compartment with even less oxygen supply?
Would the pilot turn off all electrical systems, including the vital transponder, in such a case? “Communicate” is one of the three rules, after all.
Why did this smoke reach the cockpit at the point when the plane was leaving Malaysian airspace and entering Vietnam space?
At 1.19am, the co-pilot said “All right, good night.” The transponder shut off at 1.21am – only 2 minutes after the last verbal communication from the cockpit. That space of time looks too short for the smoke to appear in the cabin and set the pilot panicking and switching off the transponder.
It has been reported that the plane turned West at the waypoint Igari. Why would such catastrophe take place at this waypoint?
It has also been reported that the last reported position as recorded on military radar at 2.15am was at waypoint Igrex on the Andaman Sea. That would be past 2 other waypoints (Vampi and Gival). Why would the pilot have programmed the auto pilot on that route, if what he intended to do was to land the plane back in Malaysia at Langkawi (an island to the West of Malaysia)?
http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/malaysia-air-way-points1.jpg
Wouldn’t the ACARS have transmitted some problems while the fire was developing? The ACARS were still operating until 1.07am.
In the event of a fire, wouldn’t the pilot switch off the auto pilot with the other electrical equipment and take manual control of the plane?
If the tyres of the front landing gear burnt, isn’t it likely that the fire would have reached and destroyed the electrical systems which apparently lie under the cockpit, including the auto pilot electronics?
If the tyres burnt, is it not very likely that a fire engulfed the plane? How could it fly for another 7 hours?
Isn’t oxygen pumped into the cabin while the plane is airborne? Wouldn’t that cause explosions in the cabin if there is a fire?
Wouldn’t an explosion cause the windows to break and the plane to crash immediately?
It is believed that the plane flew at very low altitudes. If this is correct, how could it do so without pilot control and without crashing into the land or sea below?
In the first few days after the disappearance of MH370, my opinion was that a catastrophic event had taken place, the plane lost its communications, and the pilot tried to take it back to Malaysia, possibly trying to land back in Kuala Lumpur after dumping the fuel in the Indian Ocean, south of Malaysia, without success in the landing procedure.
But since then, Malaysian authorities have continued to issue contradictory information, which suggests that they are hiding sensitive information. It seems that the Chinese have detected this. The Chinese government has repeatedly appealed to Malaysia to publish accurate and timely information. Today, Chinese relatives of the passengers have threatened a hunger strike unless Malaysia is more straightforward with the facts:
“Don’t let the passengers become the victims of a political fight.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26626204
I am thinking that this is a spectacular pilot suicide, led by an expert pilot. I think he wanted to make a political statement, by drawing full attention to the political situation in Malaysia and putting its government under pressure, and he did so by making a Boeing 777 literally disappear.
Mr. Ahmad Shah has posted videos on the net, suggesting some “Arani ma” attitude. Besides, I would not rely fully on the assessment which his Malaysian colleagues gave of him. If they are involved in politics like him, they will never give a truthful statement about him, especially in these circumstances.
It was the Daily Mail, oddly, that first published the fact that he was involved in politics and that he was close to the leader of the Opposition party in Malaysia. Today, it was revealed that he is an in-law of the Malaysian leader of the Opposition, although the Malaysian leader had initially suggested that he hardly knew who Mr. Ahmad Shah was.
http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/new-twist-anwar-now-admits-mh370-capt-related-to-him/
The party in charge of Malaysia’s government has been in power since Independence in 1957.
I may be reading too much in this, but I believe that this T-Shirt here may be related to what has happened on 8 March.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/16/article-2581817-1C56DB9E00000578-105_964x699.jpg
If this incident is related to Malaysian politics, the government there will be doing its best to avoid publicising the connection and they may never tell us the truth, because Ahmad Shah could become a “martyr for democracy” in Malaysia and there could be an uprising. They may never tell us if Ahmad Shah left any note to explain what he did.
The Malaysian authorities entered his home on 14th March, a full six days after the plane disappeared over the South China Sea.
Why would the investigating authorities allow so many days to go by before searching the first place they should be searching?
What if the pilot had left a message written on the walls of his living room stating that he will be diverting flight MH370 and where he would take it? Wouldn’t that be too late for a search and rescue operation?
Interesting theory, but I find it hard to believe that trained and experienced pilots would rip out relays (‘busses’) whilst the cockpit rapidly fills with smoke.
Disabling circuits is not going to suddenly stop a rapid ingress of smoke. It won’t stop any fire that has caught hold.
Furthermore, there are sensors on the brakes which would send a warning if they overheated (which a burning tyre would set off). I think that if you’ve reached that stage of desperation that you’re switching off systems you’re no longer aviating nor navigating and you should be communicating.
Furthermore, every plane has a strong axe hidden in the passenger cabin in case it is needed to force an entry into the cockpit. A sudden left turn would attract the cabin crew’s attention and they should investigate. Unlikely that they wouldn’t. And also, apparently the plane climbed to 45,000 feet and this theory doesn’t explain that at all.
No ripping out is necessary. They are circuit breakers that are pulled, only slightly different from the ones at your house. Visible here in the rearmost panel of the overhead; http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3238/2720216256_899c051ef0_o.jpg
Aircraft are built to self extinguish. By disabling the electrical source, the fire only burns for a few minutes. It’s standard SOP.
While I believe the fire theory is plausible, I’m more inclined to lean towards an electrical fire from within the cockpit itself. In the Egyptair case the fire was so severe and intense that it literally consumed everything in the 15 seconds it took for the first officer to run around the apron looking for a radio.
[Daphne – Could a cigarette cause a fire in a cockpit, or is that not possible because there is not much that is immediately externally flammable via a smouldering cigarette, and the pilots would have noticed right away anyway, if they weren’t asleep? I ask because the two young women invited into the cockpit, during another flight, by that same co-pilot, made much of the fact that he was smoking.]
I highly doubt it because of exactly the reasons you mentioned, and the fact that there is a fire extinguisher close by.
A cigarette fire would simply not have the intensity to be uncontrollable. There is a big caveat here though: the O2 system. It delivers pure oxygen, and if there was any sort of accident, even the tiniest fire would be an instant inferno.
Relatives tried to call their loved ones on their mobile phones and all they heard was the ringing tone. If the plane plunged into the sea, could mobile phones keep on ringing ?
What I find strange is how come with so many people on board and not even one person called their loved ones. If there was a fire I would assume that there was enough time for someone to call home unless they had lack of mobile reception.
[Daphne – You can’t call somebody from a plane up in the air using a normal mobile phone.]
To me, this theory doesn’t sound plausible. The main reason is because (as far as what has been made public), the airliner lost all radio and radar contact. If true, I find it very hard to believe that this could happen accidentally or as a consequence of losing electrical power.
Of course, if something goes drastically wrong, the first priority for the pilots would be to regain the aircraft’s control.
After a few seconds, top priority would be to radio a distress call identifying the aircraft and the exact location. To save precious time for the pilots, the distress call can be sent with the single press of a special button.
A modern airliner will also have redundant power circuits and instruments. So if the major power circuits are deliberately switched off, some basic instruments and radio will still be operational. As a last resort, these critical instruments will have internal batteries.
Another two points I’d like make are these. Why was it not tracked by radar?
Are some countries keeping information secret, or was the airliner flown in a way not to be detected?
The other point is that the pilots are reasonably protected against heavy smoke in the cabin by using full face masks with bottled oxygen supply. So I think that the “pilots overcome by smoke” theory is also a bit far fetched.
My Occam’s razor would be that there was no mechanical failure, mid-air collision (no debris was found), or pilot error. That leaves only foul play inside the airliner, possibly with the collaboration of some country.
My thoughts immediately turned to the following work of art which embodies that same desperation and longing for rescue – which would never arrive:
Théodore GÉRICAULT: The Raft of the Medusa
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/raft-medusa
[Daphne – Yes, indeed.]
If the Concordia was our arrogance, this one’s our helplessness.
It’s our arrogance which tries to blame the pilots, we need an explanation that confirms our omnipotent power to control our destiny.
A sequence of events which we haven’t predicted thus unable to control cannot, should not, happen. Indeed, terror, something greater than us, is now the work of terrorists, ergo man-made. The size of the planet, nature, domesticated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caspar_David_Friedrich_006.jpg
This is my penny’s worth.
What if the 777 has an inherent fault? Who stands to lose? Boeing loses for sure.
What happens if Boeing is sued? Orders will be stopped and everyone goes elsewhere, maybe to Airbus.
Which country stands to lose if Boeing loses orders and is sued for damages?
The United States of America.
Who would defend or try to cover up the whole thing?
I suspect the US “satellite” pings and what-not stories were made to divert the search from the evidence of a crash in the ocean. This crash will remain a mystery, because there are interests in not having it solved.
I would buy Chris Goodfellow’s story. But do 777 front tyres burn?
Boeing products have had faults before. No one covered anything up. Everyone acts in the interest of safety. The satellites belong to Inmarsat, a British satellite communications company, and I believe it is their very smart engineers who figured it out.
I can’t agree with your reasoning, Gahan.
The Boeing 777 has had one of the best safety records so far. Doesn’t look like there is a history of accidents pointing to an “inherent” fault.
Boeing should be the first one with an interest to know if there is an inherent fault, so that it can fix it before it causes more losses.
Everything in this pilot’s theory rests on this: “No distress call was sent out because of the priority rule of “aviate, navigate, communicate”. Wouldn’t the pilot have been able to spare a split second to send out a distress call? Probably he could have done this even by just pressing a button.
There is as much assuming being done in this theory as there is in the other theories. In fact, there’s more evidence which points to a hijacking than which points to a fire. I don’t agree that he is using Occam’s razor correctly.
As always, reference to past incidents helps clarify what is possible.
COMPOUNDED HUMAN ERRORS AND HYPOXIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522
Note the long list of errors by the maintenance crew and by the pilots (who overlook multiple checks, misinterpret error warnings, and, at one point, ignore a direct question from an engineer nailing the issue).
Note also the long flying time with unconscious pilots and passengers (0930 to 1204 hrs).
SLOW NIGHT-TIME REACTIONS
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-last-harrowing-minutes-inside-air-france-447s-cockpit/article4393626/
The flight is going smoothly, with pilots joking at 2:06hrs. However, at 2:10, a pitot fails (it freezes), disengaging the auto-pilot. The pilots react wrongly (raising the nose and stalling the plane) and just four minutes later they’re dead. This was a night flight, when reactions are inevitably slower.
QUICK FIRES / DECOMPRESSION / SMOKE PROPAGATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiofQXPJPdM&list=PL16FDA88FB2507365
Stop after 6 seconds (the heat would be unbearable) and 15 seconds (the smoke would have blinded anyone not crawling). Fire, decompression or smoke propagation can all happen extremely rapidly.
SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/02/01/22534411-two-planes-grounded-in-northeast-after-smoke-fills-cabins?lite
Likewise, there may be a fire which burns out, without damaging an airframe – but after generating toxic, blinding, fatal smoke.
PLANES FLYING WITH SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
Fire, decompression or smoke propagation can all be fatal without damaging the airframe. Having said that, even should the airframe be damaged, flight may still be possible – even with extreme damage.
THE STUPIDEST OF CAUSES
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_jet_fire_investigation_finds_faulty_wiring_in_A340_fleet
Mood lighting for a bar (!) on a plane causes a fire. Note the switching off of electrical circuits.
As Chris Goodfellow suggested, it appears likely that a fire (partly) disabled equipment. This prompted the pilots to set the auto-pilot on course to the nearest airstrip, and then try disengaging other equipment in an attempt to isolate the fire/smoke source, which nonetheless unfortunately overcame them rapidly.
One hopes it was over quickly for the crew and passengers, and that the current media exposure emphasizes the things all nationalities have in common – grief for loved ones, desire to help, empathy, curiosity – despite the tendency of politicians to emphasise ‘unique’ national traits.
A fire, smoke in the cabin or decompression would have prompted the PIC to declare an emergency ahead of executing a sharp turn on an extremely busy airway in south-east Asia.
The suggestion that the fire could have damaged communications circuitry without simultaneously knocking out or severely damaging its avionics (which would have made a fly-by-wire aircraft such as the 777-200 simply unflyable) is preposterous.
The Air France 447 flight had a crew of three, and yet did not declare an emergency – albeit they only had a frozen pitot to contend with. The Helios 552 flight did declare an emergency, but committed multiple, ultimately fatal, mistakes.
Communications may have been disabled accidentally, or purposely to attempt isolation of an electrical fault. For example, Aeroflot Flight 593 crashed after the pilot let his children into the cockpit and did not notice they accidentally disengaged the autopilot; it’s been documented that the Malaysian co-pilot smoked in the cockpit and brought passengers into the cockpit.
In short, $h!t happens – and in aviation it can do so very, very quickly. One need not be a mathematician to work out what is more likely – a repeat of past incidents, or any one of the preposterous (but certainly attention-grabbing, viewer-ratings friendly) theories being bandied about.
Interesting theory – the question then becomes why did the co-pilot mislead air traffic control by saying good night instead of sending out a distress call?
I also read somewhere that there was a 14-minute time lag between the two systems being disabled – surely enough time to radio an urgent update to traffic control somewhere?
Chris Goodfellow’s theory does sound plausible, even if only it wasn’t for that niggling feeling that the aviation authorities have not told us all they know.
There’s an element of confusion and turnaround in the information given, and ‘new’ information suddenly becoming available that is hard to ignore.
Two problems with this hypothesis in that:
1) No Mayday signal was issued. If there was a cockpit fire, the pilots would have issued a distress call as per procedure.
2) The two pilots have oxygen masks which would have allowed them to breathe if there was smoke in the cockpit.
A previous plane crash that was caused by a cockpit fire is Swissair flight 111. In this case, a distress call was issued and both pilots used oxygen masks whilst trying to initially contain the emergency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
There seems to be a prevalent belief that in an emergency the priority is to make a distress call, as if the air traffic control officer on the ground can magically do something to help ease the predicament.
Swiss Air 111 was caused by a single wire. It was also the accident that led to the introduction of self-extinguishing materials in aircraft. The failure mode of 111 was that of a kindling fire, aft of the cockpit, that burned slowly forward for 30 or so minutes. They made a mayday call because they had a lot of time from initial smoke detection until loss of control.
For reference, here is the Smoke/Fumes/Fire checklist on the 777;
‘The ‘SMOKE/FUMES/FIRE ELEC’ checklist initial actions are: don oxygen mask and regulators (if required), establish crew communications, turn gasper switch off (which removes fan as a possible source of smoke/fumes), and turn recirculation fans off. If the source of smoke can be determined, power should be removed from the affected electrical equipment by a switch or circuit breaker. If the smoke persists or the source is unknown then the checklist instructs for various cabin and in-flight entertainment systems to be turned off, and to accomplish a landing at the nearest suitable airport. It also directs the crew to the ‘SMOKE/FUME/ODOR REMOVL’ checklist.’
You can see that it nowhere mentions air to ground communications. The ‘establish crew comms’ is internal, between captain and first officer. And why should it? The immediate priority is to extinguish the fire and set the aircraft for landing.
The checklist is copy pasted from page 67 of section of this report, which some of you might find interesting;
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_2009_n786ua/n786ua_report_sections.cfm
Furthermore, oxygen masks are no good in case of electric smoke, where the sulfuric fumes would irritate your eyes.
[Daphne – The people who think that in a fire situation the priority is to call for help are the ones with no imagination and who have never been in a fire situation. They don’t understand that there simply isn’t time to make a call. In that situation, your priority is to deal with the fire, or if you can’t, to escape. If you can do neither, then you are finished – as probably happened here. When our house was set on fire (twice – the second time in a conflagration) our priority was to get the fire under control and only then think about calling the fire brigade and the police. It was only when my son and my husband got the industrial water-pump and hose going and had most of the fire quelled that I, as the third person, began ringing people. You don’t leave the fire raging while you go off and ring people.]
OK. Firstly, the checklists are there to ensure pilots follow the correct procedure for the situation at hand. The general procedure is for ATC to be alerted for any emergency situation at hand once it has been dealt with (or is being dealt with). You can check this link if you want.
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/students/flighttestprep/skills/fire.html
“If we have time to communicate before powering down the electrical system, we have three options. Call ATC, broadcast in the blind on the emergency frequency of 121.5 MHz, or tune the 7700 emergency code into the transponder and IDENT. Taking a few seconds to do any of these things before we shut down the electrical system might alert someone to the problem and bring fire/rescue services to the scene as we head for an airport. Finally, if it has a manual switch, we can activate the emergency locator transmitter. The beauty of the ELT is that it has its own power supply and will bring help to the scene of a forced landing should that become necessary.”
And another checklist overview for Smoke, Fire and Fumes onboard an aircraft:
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/948.pdf
Note the reference to smoke goggles that pilots will don in the eventuality of acrid smoke. Also, note the consideration to be given for emergency communication including crew and ATC.
ATC cannot magically fix the problem, but they can alert authorities and prepare the ground for an emergency landing.
And this is the Quick Reference Handbook for the 777 which has a comprehensive section on Smoke Fire and Fumes.
http://ebookbrowsee.net/777-quick-reference-handbook-qrh-rev15-22122010-pdf-d286932076
Clearly, there was no catastrophic situation which quickly overwhelmed the aircraft as it deviated from it’s intended course and changed altitude plus continuing to fly for many hours by all accounts. That sounds like controlled flight to me which may mean that the pilots were trying contain any possible in-flight fire that there may have been.
In that situation it is also very certain that the pilots would have issued a distress call unless they did not have the means too.
If you want to use your imagination and think of what a pilot would do in a in-flight fire situation, then listen to the Swissair 111 ATC-Ground comms. At one point, you hear the pilot say that they are going through the checklists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2R1PuXlC8
Yes exactly, ‘once it has been dealt with’ and ‘if we have time’. Your words and quotes.
Not all airlines have smoke hoods.
I’ve not seen any reputable evidence of a climb. The authorities only mentioned the turn.
The priorities are always aviate, navigate, communicate. The turn was towards a known airport with a long runway.
Often this is one of the first instincts drilled into a pilot. Keep it flying, point it to an airport, sort the problem out.
I am a licensed pilot, albeit not on anything as fancy as a 777. I’m not saying we are told to keep our peace and not let anyone know anything. But there is a significant amount one does before attention can be diverted to less important things.
I have already discussed why Swiss Air 111 was different. Think of an electrical fire in the central pedestal. Immediate, near and vigorous.
“The priorities are always aviate, navigate, communicate”. Your words.
As a pilot, you know as well as I do that at some point you will have to inform ATC of an emergency and your intention to divert unless you and crew are incapacitated, unable to communicate for any reason or have no comms. On that I am sure we would mutually agree.
The cockpit fire is a hypothesis and I used Swissair-111 as a marker to show that pilots can and will communicate with the ground whilst dealing with an emergency.
If there was a cockpit fire similar to the EgyptAir MS-667, then the plane probably would have suffered a catastrophic failure in flight and crashed into the South China Sea where wreckage would have been found. This did not happen as the aircraft continued in flight for several hours.
So, it’s my opinion that if there was a in-flight fire, the pilots would have issued a distress call at some point unless they were unable too for the reasons given above.
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=44078aa7&opt=0
Yes, obviously, there is no disagreement on that point.
What I am saying is that I can imagine a situation where the crew are overwhelmed yet manage to perform some of their action items, allowing the fire to incapacitate them yet extinguish itself shortly after and not affect the structural integrity of the aircraft too severely, allowing it to fly for another 7+ hours.
The absence of a Mayday call should not be taken as indicative of someone doing something wrong. There are as many accident reports where crews have sent distress calls as there are that have not.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26640114
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/aviation-expert-disputes-missing-jet-fire-theory-n56011
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/18/mh370_disappearance_chris_goodfellow_s_theory_about_a_fire_and_langkawi.html
Some counter-reading ….
The link to Chris Goodfellow’s piece is here:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/
Chris Goodfellow’s explanation is full of holes.
1. A seasoned captain would IMMEDIATELY report any problem with the plane more so if it is a fire on board.
[Daphne – Apparently not, given past experience. Many such examples have been cited here already.]
2. The tyre theory is nonsense. The plane had been in air for 41 minutes before the abrupt turn. A tyre fire would have been detected much sooner and return to airport required ’emergency clearance’ – none was requested.
[Daphne – The tyre fire was an example of a fire. The theory is not dependent on the tyre being the cause of a fire, but on there being a fire, from whatever cause.]
3. The ‘circuit breakers’ are NOT located in the cockpit but under the cockpit through a hatch only accessible by a special key not accessible by anyone except the cockpit crew, according to a 777 pilot.
4. It is inconceivable that anyone would send out a message “OK good night” if there was the slightest indication of trouble on board.
[Daphne – The change in direction was after the last voice contact.]
5. If the fire was such that it burned through the cockpit controls, why did it not affect the ‘autopilot’ electronics?
6. If the debris 1500 miles West of Perth Australia is from MH370, it means that the plane flew for seven and a half hours after the last contact by which time it would have been burned to a cinder had there been a fire on board.
While there have been dozens of experts on CNN and elsewhere, no one has so far dared make a statement such as Chris Goodfellow based on tit-bits of information released from time to time by the various investigation teams, Boeing engineers and 777 pilots.
[Daphne – There have been some appalling statements, including suicide and terrorism by the pilot himself.]
They were wrong on many knee-jerk assumptions among which the locations they started searching the missing plane and the time wasted in assuming that the plane headed North, when in fact it was headed in the exact opposite direction.
Why would it have flown North when a number of countries would have detected the plane on their radar systems? Obviously the crew’s intentions were to reach their ‘intended’ destination with minimum chances of detection.
I wrote earlier here that, again, from my observations garnered from the information given, the plane would have headed in WSW direction. If the debris is confirmed as coming from the MH370, I would have been somewhat close.
And I am not a pilot, know little about the Boeing 777, but I follow details of every accident or near miss as closely as possible.
Fire/Smoke procedures call for turning off busses, not individual components such as transponders. Emergency radios would continue to power essential items such as transponder, communication and navigation equipment. Short of a catastrophic event, transponders should stayed powered.
In the absence of debris, ELT Beacon and Underwater Beacon your theory falls apart quickly. I agree standard contingency procedure is to turn off airway and it appears that is the case. However once they turn pilots are trained to execute a 15 mile offset from the airway, then climb or descend 300 feet, followed by a “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY” requesting emergency clearance from ATC. Those procedures were not followed. And although eventually, pilots may loose control due to not being able to see through the dense smoke, they are trained to Don their masks and goggles at the first sign of smoke or fire which would have had given them enough time to “avigate, navigate and communicate”. Sorry, but your theory doesn’t hold water.
For all those onboard and their loved ones left behind a terrible tragedy and our prayers and thoughts are with those left behind.
Best case scenario is this airplane did fly for 7 hours and merely disappeared without a trace…Worst case scenario; this plane becomes a WMD. If the latter is the case, the aircraft has the capability of delivering unimaginable terror to any city in the world.
The busbar merely conducts electricity to other components. It’s like your house circuit breaker. Once it goes off, everything goes dark, you don’t need to turn off individual lights from the switches. The ELT does not work underwater and there was no underwater beacon on this aircraft. I fear many of you are being mislead by fire. What many pilots (and not just ‘Chris Goodfellow’) are referring to isn’t orange flame. It’s an electrical wire arcing creating immense amounts of smoke.
Regardless, believe in conspiracy if you must.