Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"
Discussion
AreOut said:
El stovey said:
So if you shut one engine down and had to fly lower in denser air, do you think you’d be using more or less fuel than on two engines flying higher up in thinner air? What would the effect be on the range with this decreased fuel efficiency you’ve mentioned?
you would have to use more fuel regardless if you ran one or two engines at lower altitude, at higher altitude air is also cooler not just less dense which also helps efficiencyEl stovey said:
You think you’d be noticed by other aircraft? So you’d need experience to find a route with less aircraft on it?
Presumably flying along a border is just telling the aircraft to follow some waypoints?
Or do you think the copilot wouldn’t know that or wouldn’t think to do that in the first place?
well if he flew standard route there is always chance(albeit very low) someone would notice him, yes flying along a border might be a coincidence as a route between two waypoints but in this case there is strong doubt it's done for purposePresumably flying along a border is just telling the aircraft to follow some waypoints?
Or do you think the copilot wouldn’t know that or wouldn’t think to do that in the first place?
copilot wouldn't even dare thinking about this let alone try pulling it off
What kind of fuel flows would you expect for the two engines combined higher up vs the one lower down? Is there much difference?
What altitude do you think you’d have to fly at on one engine?
Regarding the waypoints you can just make your own up. If you want to fly along a border, you either just use pre existing ones or input your own. That’s how people draw pictures on flight radar. You have a mouse and you click on a map and you can add them to your route very easily. A copilot could easily fly an aircraft along a national border if they wanted to.
Disastrous said:
AreOut, do you find it incomprehensible that you aren’t considered a leading authority on this sort of thing?
I know that and I don't have a problem with it.El stovey said:
That’s very odd, you’d think running one engine at lower altitude would result in a lower total fuel flow than using two at higher altitude.
What kind of fuel flows would you expect for the two engines combined higher up vs the one lower down? Is there much difference?
What altitude do you think you’d have to fly at on one engine?
Regarding the waypoints you can just make your own up. If you want to fly along a border, you either just use pre existing ones or input your own. That’s how people draw pictures on flight radar. You have a mouse and you click on a map and you can add them to your route very easily. A copilot could easily fly an aircraft along a national border if they wanted to.
I don't know what the difference in efficiency is and it probably depends on conditions (upstream/downstream etc.).What kind of fuel flows would you expect for the two engines combined higher up vs the one lower down? Is there much difference?
What altitude do you think you’d have to fly at on one engine?
Regarding the waypoints you can just make your own up. If you want to fly along a border, you either just use pre existing ones or input your own. That’s how people draw pictures on flight radar. You have a mouse and you click on a map and you can add them to your route very easily. A copilot could easily fly an aircraft along a national border if they wanted to.
I know copilot could fly it that way as well but I doubt that idea would spring into his mind.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes indeed, but to understand the probability of something happening you probably need to know a bit about how the aircraft works etc in the first place? I mean there’s people saying x or y is near impossible etc and they don’t seem to know how a B777 works. That can’t be right.
All we really possibly know is where it went initially and then some stuff stopped working and there was some turns and then a gap and it appeared (based on some other data) miles away to the south.
Everything else is simply guesswork.
AreOut said:
but there is a probability you can attribute to each event, turning off transponder at a handover area? 1:100. Flying along the border? 1:100. Going around Sumatra? 1:100. (I don't claim these are exact numbers but you get the idea)
Now you multiply numbers.
Those are just made up though. We don’t know why the transponder stopped working or why that route was flown.Now you multiply numbers.
What probability are you attaching to a pilot committing suicide after flying around loads of countries and wanting the aircraft to never be found?
What probability are you attaching to him trying to reach Australia and something happening which stopped him.
You appear to have ruled out every conceivable technical problem and combinations of events and multiple problems. What probability did you give to them?
It’s just guesswork. You’re attaching probability randomly,
There are loads of accidents that people wouldn’t have worked out without the ‘black box’ and CVR.
Who would have guessed that an Aeroflot A310 would have crashed because someone’s children disengaged the autopilot by accident whilst occupying the pilots seats? What was the probability of that happening?
Kids sitting in pilots seats in flight. 1:100
Kids disengage autopilot by accident 1:100
Nobody realising autopilot disengaged 1:100
Aircraft stalls
Pilots can’t recover.
Aircraft crashes
No radio calls.
Imagine if that was over the ocean and they didn’t find the aircraft. What would they think happened?
There are loads of crashes like this that would never have been guessed correctly by probability. So many different things have to go wrong for there to be a crash.
El stovey said:
Those are just made up though. We don’t know why the transponder stopped working or why that route was flown.
What probability are you attaching to a pilot committing suicide after flying around loads of countries and wanting the aircraft to never be found?
What probability are you attaching to him trying to reach Australia and something happening which stopped him.
You appear to have ruled out every conceivable technical problem and combinations of events and multiple problems. What probability did you give to them?
It’s just guesswork. You’re attaching probability randomly,
There are loads of accidents that people wouldn’t have worked out without the ‘black box’ and CVR.
Who would have guessed that an Aeroflot A310 would have crashed because someone’s children disengaged the autopilot by accident whilst occupying the pilots seats? What was the probability of that happening?
Kids sitting in pilots seats in flight. 1:100
Kids disengage autopilot by accident 1:100
Nobody realising autopilot disengaged 1:100
Aircraft stalls
Pilots can’t recover.
Aircraft crashes
No radio calls.
Imagine if that was over the ocean and they didn’t find the aircraft. What would they think happened?
There are loads of crashes like this that would never have been guessed correctly by probability. So many different things have to go wrong for there to be a crash.
/ thread closed. (Sorry AreOut). What probability are you attaching to a pilot committing suicide after flying around loads of countries and wanting the aircraft to never be found?
What probability are you attaching to him trying to reach Australia and something happening which stopped him.
You appear to have ruled out every conceivable technical problem and combinations of events and multiple problems. What probability did you give to them?
It’s just guesswork. You’re attaching probability randomly,
There are loads of accidents that people wouldn’t have worked out without the ‘black box’ and CVR.
Who would have guessed that an Aeroflot A310 would have crashed because someone’s children disengaged the autopilot by accident whilst occupying the pilots seats? What was the probability of that happening?
Kids sitting in pilots seats in flight. 1:100
Kids disengage autopilot by accident 1:100
Nobody realising autopilot disengaged 1:100
Aircraft stalls
Pilots can’t recover.
Aircraft crashes
No radio calls.
Imagine if that was over the ocean and they didn’t find the aircraft. What would they think happened?
There are loads of crashes like this that would never have been guessed correctly by probability. So many different things have to go wrong for there to be a crash.
El stovey said:
Those are just made up though. We don’t know why the transponder stopped working or why that route was flown.
well they are, in reality those numbers might be much higherwe don't know why the transponder stopped working but we can divide a total distance (say 2000 miles) with approx. length of handover point (say 20 miles) to conclude there is a 1:100 chance it happened exactly at that point etc.
for the plane to make the turn at that point, go along the thai border, skim indonesian airspace and then go around Indonesia you have to fly it or enter the waypoints yourself, from from what we know it's quite obvious there was an intent to cause as little suspicion as possible and evade indonesian airspace
AreOut said:
well they are, in reality those numbers might be much higher
we don't know why the transponder stopped working but we can divide a total distance (say 2000 miles) with approx. length of handover point (say 20 miles) to conclude there is a 1:100 chance it happened exactly at that point etc.
for the plane to make the turn at that point, go along the thai border, skim indonesian airspace and then go around Indonesia you have to fly it or enter the waypoints yourself, from from what we know it's quite obvious there was an intent to cause as little suspicion as possible and evade indonesian airspace
It’s not quite obvious. It’s only like that to you because you’re not entertaining any other possible cause. we don't know why the transponder stopped working but we can divide a total distance (say 2000 miles) with approx. length of handover point (say 20 miles) to conclude there is a 1:100 chance it happened exactly at that point etc.
for the plane to make the turn at that point, go along the thai border, skim indonesian airspace and then go around Indonesia you have to fly it or enter the waypoints yourself, from from what we know it's quite obvious there was an intent to cause as little suspicion as possible and evade indonesian airspace
That’s why you find yourself constantly saying your theory is the only possible outcome, when clearly everyone else can see there’s lots of possible causes.
Unfortunately also, you keep displaying that you don’t really understand what you’re discussing. You’re constantly mixing in some half correct technical jargon with things which are simply wrong and dressing them up as facts.
I just find it really odd that you keep making out you know all about the B777 when it’s quite clear to everyone you don’t.
AreOut said:
I have never said I know everything about B777 or anything for that matter. Nor do I see why is the type of an airliner important at all here, I'm looking at this case from psychological POV not technical one.
What's your background in psychological analysis? Professional or amateur?Just wondering, since you've now been comprehensively handed your @rse by the aviation professionals here, if you're considering switching tack maybe we can get a genuine expert in your new domain of rampant and self-indulgent speculation to do likewise.
El stovey said:
Those are just made up though. We don’t know why the transponder stopped working or why that route was flown.
What probability are you attaching to a pilot committing suicide after flying around loads of countries and wanting the aircraft to never be found?
What probability are you attaching to him trying to reach Australia and something happening which stopped him.
You appear to have ruled out every conceivable technical problem and combinations of events and multiple problems. What probability did you give to them?
It’s just guesswork. You’re attaching probability randomly,
There are loads of accidents that people wouldn’t have worked out without the ‘black box’ and CVR.
Who would have guessed that an Aeroflot A310 would have crashed because someone’s children disengaged the autopilot by accident whilst occupying the pilots seats? What was the probability of that happening?
Kids sitting in pilots seats in flight. 1:100
Kids disengage autopilot by accident 1:100
Nobody realising autopilot disengaged 1:100
Aircraft stalls
Pilots can’t recover.
Aircraft crashes
No radio calls.
Imagine if that was over the ocean and they didn’t find the aircraft. What would they think happened?
There are loads of crashes like this that would never have been guessed correctly by probability. So many different things have to go wrong for there to be a crash.
Or the Costa Concordia's captain showing off to his bint on the bridge and stuffing it up the rocks...What probability are you attaching to a pilot committing suicide after flying around loads of countries and wanting the aircraft to never be found?
What probability are you attaching to him trying to reach Australia and something happening which stopped him.
You appear to have ruled out every conceivable technical problem and combinations of events and multiple problems. What probability did you give to them?
It’s just guesswork. You’re attaching probability randomly,
There are loads of accidents that people wouldn’t have worked out without the ‘black box’ and CVR.
Who would have guessed that an Aeroflot A310 would have crashed because someone’s children disengaged the autopilot by accident whilst occupying the pilots seats? What was the probability of that happening?
Kids sitting in pilots seats in flight. 1:100
Kids disengage autopilot by accident 1:100
Nobody realising autopilot disengaged 1:100
Aircraft stalls
Pilots can’t recover.
Aircraft crashes
No radio calls.
Imagine if that was over the ocean and they didn’t find the aircraft. What would they think happened?
There are loads of crashes like this that would never have been guessed correctly by probability. So many different things have to go wrong for there to be a crash.
eharding said:
Just wondering, since you've now been comprehensively handed your @rse by the aviation professionals here,
how so?! I appreciate everyone's knowledge and experience but it's not like I have made any substintially wrong claims.It's like solving a disappearing car mystery, your knowledge about cars and driving wouldn't help much if it was the driver who made decisions where the car will go.
AreOut said:
how so?! I appreciate everyone's knowledge and experience but it's not like I have made any substintially wrong claims.
Other than the presumption in your next sentence.....AreOut said:
It's like solving a disappearing car mystery, your knowledge about cars and driving wouldn't help much if it was the driver who made decisions where the car will go.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff