MH 777 missing - MH370 media statement

[moa999]

Original piece here:
MH370: Dramatic new find may solve mystery

I'm no expert on fire, but that doesn't necessarily look like singe marks to me, looks more like a gradual delamination after months at sea.

 

[Quickstatus]

Original piece here:
MH370: Dramatic new find may solve mystery

I'm no expert on fire, but that doesn't necessarily look like singe marks to me, looks more like a gradual delamination after months at sea.

Interestingly Blaine alleges that Malaysia has not picked up 5 pieces of "debris" that he found several months ago.

 

[jb747]

Interestingly Blaine alleges that Malaysia has not picked up 5 pieces of "debris" that he found several months ago.

If he's passed them to the ATSB, then how would he know?

 

[Quickstatus]

If he's passed them to the ATSB, then how would he know?

Thats what he is doing now, bypassing Malaysia. The other pieces is apparently still waiting to be picked up? Article is unclear why he didn't just send the other bits with latest find?

 

[marki]

https://apple.news/Ac89QXGR5SxGDdIPqCF0-5g

Very interesting plausible reason, different to what NG aircraft investigation team came up with.

 

[MarkD]

Another theory. Another way to milk some dollars. She does not know anything, she is simply guessing and making assumptions without any evidence whatsoever to make a quick buck

 

[marki]

Another theory. Another way to milk some dollars. She does not know anything, she is simply guessing and making assumptions without any evidence whatsoever to make a quick buck

A Very cynical view( a distrust of human integrity and sincerity) this is not a way to make a quick buck. The statement of yours " she does not know anything" underlines without doubt maybe ur own judgment about the knowledge a person like yourself, may possibly possess to be dishing it out. I am not sure why drRon would be liking such an opinion .......a person I highly respect in his views. It's a free world.

 

[drron]

I'm sorry but the things that are postulated in that article don't fit the known facts.
first there were the pings and calculation of a track to the southern Indian ocean.
When that was known Oceanographers predicted that debris would be washed up on the East coast of Southern Africa.And it has.
I/m sorry but a severe decompression with a delirious First Officer at the controls somehow steering it to the Southern Indian ocean just doesn't stack up.

 

[straitman]

I am not going to go through the article point by point but must agree with MarkD here.

The article is full of assumptions, the first of which is that the Captain was not in the coughpit. The second being that there was an explosive decompression and the third that the First officer didn't do what is imbedded into a pilots head that securing oxygen supply is and must be the first item addressed.

The assumptions go on from there. Penang with 11,000 ft runway not sufficient and that 12,500 ft was needed etc etc.....

The whole article could be reworded as a theory but once again it would only be a theory.

 

[marki]

I'm sorry but the things that are postulated in that article don't fit the known facts.
first there were the pings and calculation of a track to the southern Indian ocean.
When that was known Oceanographers predicted that debris would be washed up on the East coast of Southern Africa.And it has.
I/m sorry but a severe decompression with a delirious First Officer at the controls somehow steering it to the Southern Indian ocean just doesn't stack up.

I am sorry too, the article does not refute the known facts about calculated track from the pings or the washed up debris being washed up in specific places. ( I am not perfect and I might have missed it somewhere)

I am not going to go through the article point by point but must agree with MarkD here.

The article is full of assumptions, the first of which is that the Captain was not in the coughpit. The second being that there was an explosive decompression and the third that the First officer didn't do what is imbedded into a pilots head that securing oxygen supply is and must be the first item addressed.

The assumptions go on from there. Penang with 11,000 ft runway not sufficient and that 12,500 ft was needed etc etc.....

The whole article could be reworded as a theory but once again it would only be a theory.

More sudden less explosive I think. Pilots are the weakest link in the human - coughpit interface first thing we get taught in crew coughpit resource management. I agree with on the assumptions and theories but it does have some merit. I have been thru hypoxia training several times twice in Oklahoma and once in Australia so weird is part of the job. Euphoria ..... I did not like it myself and knew something was not right. Others are not that lucky.

Thanks guys for the feedback I respect u both for that

 

[drron]

CNN have come up with a theory-

.

Who would have thought?

 

[bad]

It's very much more involved and complicated then that. With empty fuel tanks being empty the aeroplane :mrgreen: Does become lighter. Shaking my head here shaking my head.

 

[jb747]

Another theory. Another way to milk some dollars. She does not know anything, she is simply guessing and making assumptions without any evidence whatsoever to make a quick buck

I have read her book. Whilst I don't believe that it was a pilot suicide, there's nothing new in her theories either. To be honest it was a waste of a few dollars.

 

[andy2015]

I have read her book. Whilst I don't believe that it was a pilot suicide, there's nothing new in her theories either. To be honest it was a waste of a few dollars.

How come you don't believe it to be pilot suicide?

 

[jb747]

How come you don't believe it to be pilot suicide?

Firstly I've never read anything that makes me think either pilot fits the bill. It's a very convenient place to put the blame though.

And second...there are far too many other possible causes. Start with the fact that the aircraft had a large cargo of lithium batteries. The book mentioned has interesting theory, and is as likely as anything else. It's just that she has no solid info either.

 

[marki]

https://apple.news/AzR-qtRlHTVmgEoHBZE2P3w



My fingers are crossed

 

[jb747]

Sounds like..."it was in the last place I looked".

From what I've read, there is no intention to continue the search, high probability or otherwise.

 

[defurax]

Start with the fact that the aircraft had a large cargo of lithium batteries. The book mentioned has interesting theory, and is as likely as anything else. It's just that she has no solid info either.

Talking about lithium batteries, just got an email from Fedex and they have decided to publish a new specific variation in next year IATA DG regulation under FX-05. Not sure it will change much in case of a fire...but batteries will now need to be packed according to Group I packaging instead of Group II.

FedEx Express policy change on lithium battery shipments (Effective January 1, 2017) (Updated)

Effective January 1, 2017, FedEx Express will no longer accept stand-alone lithium-metal batteries (categorized as UN 3090) or stand-alone lithium ion batteries (categorized as UN 3480) that have been prepared as IATA Section II shipments. Instead, shipments containing UN 3090 or UN 3480 lithium batteries must be offered as fully regulated IATA Section IA or IB shipments*, with a Shipper's Declaration for Dangerous Goods (DG) and all required Dangerous Goods markings and labeling. UN 3090 and UN 3480 Section IA/IB are fully regulated Class 9 Dangerous Goods and classified as Inaccessible Dangerous Goods (IDG). FedEx Express service options are allowed for IDG*, and an IDG surcharge will apply. Customers who ship lithium metal batteries (UN 3090) with FedEx must be pre-approved by FedEx Express to comply with the FedEx operator variations in IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. Customers who were previously approved by FedEx to be on the UN 3090 Section II list will automatically be placed on the UN 3090 Section IA/IB list*. The new policy changes will not impact UN 3091 or UN 3481 (lithium metal/ion batteries contained in or packed with equipment). When the mark/label is required, customers have the choice of using either the Lithium Battery Mark (Figure 7.1.C in the 58th edition of IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations), which goes into effect on January 1, 2017, or the existing Lithium Battery Handling Label (Figure 7.4.H in the 58th edition of IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations), which can continue to be used until December 31, 2018. As of January 1, 2019, only the Lithium Battery Mark (IATA Figure 7.1.C) can be used. Please note that the UN number must be placed on the IATA Lithium Battery Mark (IATA Figure 7.1.C), whereas the UN number should be placed on the package adjacent to Lithium Battery Handling Label (IATA Figure 7.4.H). The process of placing the UN number adjacent to the Lithium Battery Handling Label (IATA Figure 7.4.H) will be a FedEx mandatory requirement as of July 1, 2017, as per FedEx variation 'FX-05' to the IATA DG Regulations 58th edition.

 

[marki]

https://apple.news/AIBVkOVmcRlOquWy0H4tdnw

Hopes have been dashed like JB 747 said in the entry above.

 

[OATEK]

Sounds like..."it was in the last place I looked".

From what I've read, there is no intention to continue the search, high probability or otherwise.

Perhaps just trying to keep the story alive, but now suggestions of a "private" search:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/tr...h/news-story/67f2b90d55e36fdf6aa3a5b1fa1981d6