Malaysia Airlines 777 loses contact...not found

[antiqueshell]

Thanks for your considerate reply Astro14. I appreciate it.

I honestly don't see how anyone, including a professional pilot on a commercial flight would consider an emergency "cheat sheet" insulting though. Especially if it is the difference between life and death of all on board.

No ordinary flight staff or passenger ever expects to have such an emergency, however, if it occurred I would certainly be willing to make ANY effort possible no matter how slim the chances to gain control of a airliner which had both pilots incapacitated to save my skin and those of the other passengers if at at possible.

 

[Mystic]

I doubt if any passenger or flight crew member other than the pilots would be able to successfully land an airliner unless that passenger had actually flown airliners. Even if a passenger had experience with small planes it would be at least extremely difficult and no matter how experience in small planes the person had the cockpit in the airliner would be very different.

Of course these airliners are so computerized today maybe the aircraft could be programmed to virtually land itself. But a pilot would still have to set up the program.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

There is no "cheat sheet"...I personally find the idea mildly insulting...if you could pick up a sheet of paper and do my job...then why would you need my training or experience in the cockpit?


I wouldn't be insulted, I seem to recall a made for TV movie in the late 80's or early 90's (I recall a few about plane crashes, always scared me as a kid) with more or less exactly that - pilots dead, stewardess or passenger gets coached from folks on the ground how to land it. Maybe I'm dreaming but I don't think so.

Actually it is an interesting question because there is lots of stuff about safety and operations in the airline industry which people are just inquisitive about. I'd never have the guts to try to fly a big airliner with a couple hours at crop dusting school or whatever else... So the takeover theories do beg some questions...

Any time that anyone does diy or asks a question about something outside of their formal training, one could take similar offense.

Cheers!

 

[Astro14]

Flying an airliner, including programming the FMC, takes an understanding of what you want the airplane to do.

I understand how you guys feel, but trust me, I tried talking someone with no experience through flying as 747... In two hours, even with me looking over their shoulders, it was nearly impossible.

In the real world, just getting radio comunication established for our intrepid cheat sheet passenger would be extremely difficult. Look inside the cockpit some time. Tell me if you can figure out how to even talk on the radio with no hints...oh, and. I pressure, only hundreds of lives hang in the balance.

You guys are underestimating the complexity of the scenario. Made for TV movies are hardly realistic portrayals of any complex endeavor....

This is part of the reason that I would always stop by the cockpit when traveling as a passenger - I am a resource for that crew. To date, I've only been useful in dealing with some minor maintenance issues (cabin circuit breakers) and unruly passengers...

 

[andrewg]

I understand exactly what Astro14 is trying to explain here and honestly DO grasp why any pilot of a multi-engined commercial (or otherwise) jet aircraft could be insulted that anybody would think a "cheat-sheet" would be a possibility. I guess because we live in an age where we think life is a simulation or a computer game.
Learning to pilot an airliner takes many, many YEARS of classroom study as well as YEARS of actual flight time. Even then, some still fail at being capable.
It's almost embarrassing, in a way, to put myself in Astro's shoes and think what he must be going through when he reads some of these posts that have anything to do with aviation. I'm not trying to place him on a pedestal....but the experience and knowledge he must have with his background is almost incomprehensible to some of you. We aren't talking flying a Piper Cub here.
Rant off...sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
I understand exactly what Astro14 is trying to explain here and honestly DO grasp why any pilot of a multi-engined commercial (or otherwise) jet aircraft could be insulted that anybody would think a "cheat-sheet" would be a
possibility. I guess because we live in an age where we think life is a simulation or a computer game.
Learning to pilot an airliner takes many, many YEARS of classroom study as well as YEARS of actual flight time. Even then, some still fail at being capable.
It's almost embarrassing, in a way, to put myself in Astro's shoes and think what he must be going through when he reads some of these posts that have anything to do with aviation. I'm not trying to place him on a pedestal....but the experience and knowledge he must have with his background is almost incomprehensible to some of you. We aren't talking flying a Piper Cub here.
Rant off...sorry if I offended anyone.


Exactly. My thousands of hours playing Falcon, Falcon 3, Falcon 4, Falcon 4AF, the Il2 series, etc, qualifies me to fly ........ nothing.

Maybe, something like a Sopwith Pup, circa 1917.

 

[Turk]

Thank you Astro14 for everything you've done & do!

Small connection: I've developed the electronic circuits for the guidance systems on the F-14, F-18, Wild Weasel, AN/UYK43/44, & many more, at a previous job. Some Missiles as well.

 

[Astro14]

JHZR2 - it's not the questions about flying that bother me, I am always happy to answer, and I am the guy who invites folks up to the cockpit when we are at the gate. I even started a "Ask your questions about the F-14" thread in the aviation section of BITOG.

What bothers me is the presumption that "I could do your job with a cheat sheet and a bit of coaching". It's as far-fetched as grabbing a person off the street with no engineering background, sitting them down at your desk and saying, "perform a detailed engineering analysis on this ship component (or any other task that took a Masters Degree and years of OJT at which to become proficient) in the next 30 minutes. Here's a cheat sheet, you'll have to figure out what items on the desk to use and no, I can't give you my computer sign on...you'll have to figure that out, when you do, there might be a person with whom you could chat, or ask questions. Oh, and if you fail, or make any of hundreds of possible mistakes, then hundreds of people, including you, will die."

As to the question of industry protocol, we consider incapacitation of a single pilot, we train to it. It happens, extremely rarely, but it happens. A United pilot recently suffered a heart attack in flight and died later. His FO safely landed the airplane in Boise. Protocol and training successful. Job well done by the FO.

But I can't think of a single case, ever, where both pilots were incapacitated and the passengers would have been able to do anything. Payne Stewart's flight comes to mind: passengers were equally incapacitated. Same with Helios 522 - both pilots incapacitated, but so was everyone else.

This whole "no pilots to fly the plane" scenario has never happened, but it's my feeling that public concern about that scenario, expressed here as well as in other media, is another manifestation of the fundamental fear of flying: the loss of control over one's fate. Fictional scenarios that play to that fear might be memorable, but the means of resolution chosen by those writers of fiction are hardly plausible.

We've gone pretty far with this discussion. Back on topic, I am still wondering what happened to Malaysia Airlines flight 370...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
... In two hours, even with me looking over their shoulders, it was nearly impossible.

In the real world, just getting radio comunication established for our intrepid cheat sheet passenger would be extremely difficult. Look inside the cockpit some time. Tell me if you can figure out how to even talk on the radio with no hints...



EXACTLY!

Thus why its interesting. Especially when you consider 9/11, or the possibility that this was a takeover... Really? So some marginally trained folks who can maybe handle a cessna at best somehow can do anything (short of crashing directly) with a jet airliner??

Doubtful.

I totally agree that made for TV is just entertainment... But when you start to put 2+2 together, one has to wonder... I couldnt begin to understand so much of it. Its also why I love sitting in the copilot seat when hopping between islands in the Caribbean... observing the pilot is pretty awesome.

But again it stresses why there is a lot of "conspiracy theory" and whatnot related to some marginally trained folks actually flying a large aircraft with any sort of rough precision.

Back to 370, sure, takeover with rapid or even longer time out crashing is certainly possible. But takeover and then landing and reuse, if a third party??? I dont see the feasibility - cheat sheet, marginal training or not... Of course you have to see/understand how that fact drives the conspiracy theories... since it is fairly obvious the first time you look in the door to the flight deck.

 

[Vikas]

Astro:- Can I get your opinion on the "Air Disaster" series (available on Netflix)? It was produced by Smithsonian. It is very chilling in showing how an extremely simple fault/mistake can cascade in to fatal outcome. Since these are real cases solved by NTSB, I am presuming they are not taking too many liberties with the truth in the presentation.

So my question to you:- Do you end up throwing your remote at the TV in disgust when you watch this series or not?

 

[Astro14]

Vikas - I only saw one episode of the show. It was accurate, technically, and did a good job of explanation, but it was slow...a 10 minute show trying to last an hour with repeats of questions, build-up, and other production tricks. I liked the show, I liked how clear they made technical details, but drawing out the drama was irritating to me. Clearly, I am not the target audience...

It's a good show.

 

[KrisZ]

I have a feeling lots of the suggestions about getting untrained people to try and fly the plane come from the fact that we have tons of so called "flight simulator" video games as well as plenty of movies about flying.

We have similar mind set with kids racing thinking they can handle a car because it is so easy on the console or the computer.

 

[Astro14]

Good point Kris.

 

[Blaze]

Hypoxia...I remember the first few days another pilot reported he contacted flight 370 and only got "mumbling" back from either the pilot or co-pilot...this to me would be KEY!


In severe hypoxia, or hypoxia of very rapid onset, ataxia, confusion / disorientation / hallucinations / behavioral change, severe headaches / reduced level of consciousness, papilloedema, breathlessness,

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2



EXACTLY!

Thus why its interesting. Especially when you consider 9/11, or the possibility that this was a takeover... Really? So some marginally trained folks who can maybe handle a cessna at best somehow can do anything (short of crashing directly) with a jet airliner??

Doubtful.



I think that was one of the things that was so troubling about 9/11. The guys who took over the planes were definitely not skilled pilots, but they had enough training to point and shoot the aircraft to where they wanted. They also never communicated with ATC, and their intentions were not to land the plane safely, but they had enough skill to hit a target.

Astro's point is clear when you look at flight 93. The passengers took back the plane, but it ended up crashing in a field anyway.

The points others have made about video games are right on key as well. You can play flight simulator for thousands of hours, but that doesn't mean you know how to handle an aircraft in real life. The yoke and controls don't handle similar to the computer keys.

 

[Astro14]

I like the hypoxia explanation better than many alternatives. It's considerably better than universe-swallowing black holes (the former secretary of whatever that refuted the black hole theory clearly doesn't understand physics either...there are lots of black holes in our own galaxy...but I digress...).

As yet, though, there is no evidence to support or refute hypoxia, it simply remains possible.

By the way, while many pilots have commented that the Captain's flight simulator set up was unusual and that caused suspicion, I thought the set up was sweet! I would love something like that and have considered equipping my study with a nice computer and a joystick/throttle set up. No 777, but a few carrier landings after a combat mission....perhaps a bit of Mass Effect?

Didn't seem weird to me at all...

 

[D189379]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I like the hypoxia explanation better than many alternatives. It's considerably better than universe-swallowing black holes (the former secretary of whatever that refuted the black hole theory clearly doesn't understand physics either...there are lots of black holes in our own galaxy...but I digress...).

As yet, though, there is no evidence to support or refute hypoxia, it simply remains possible.

By the way, while many pilots have commented that the Captain's flight simulator set up was unusual and that caused suspicion, I thought the set up was sweet! I would love something like that and have considered equipping my study with a nice computer and a joystick/throttle set up. No 777, but a few carrier landings after a combat mission....perhaps a bit of Mass Effect?

Didn't seem weird to me at all...


I was wondering if you could answer a question for me?

If someone purposely wanted to de-pressurize the plane from the cockpit while flying at 35,000 feet, how long would it actually take for the cabin air pressure to drop down to the same level as the pressure outside the plane?

I'm probably using the wrong terminology here, but lets assume they shut off the automatic system that controls this, and then manually open the outflow valve wide open. (Sorry if I'm completely mis-using aviation terms here lol)

Are we talking instantly? Seconds? Minutes?

I'm just wondering about some of the theories. Like if its feasible that if one pilot left the cockpit for any reason, that the other pilot could quickly switch the system off and have it incapacitate him/and everyone else before he could get back inside.

 

[Astro14]

You got the terms right. The outflow valve is normally controlled by a computer that regulates cabin pressure. That pressure is up to a max differential with outside pressure, so inside cabin altitude varies with aircraft altitude.

Manually opening the valve takes seconds (this is an important capability to ensure safe egress on ground if there is a pressurization problem or to address failures in the system).

Cabin pressure would climb to aircraft altitude in a matter of a few minutes if he valve(s) were set to full open in flight. Those valves often have triple redundant actuators because they are so critical to flight safety.

Could I lock out the other pilot, put on my mask, and dump cabin pressure? Yes, if I took advantage of him being outside the cockpit on a physiological break. The oxygen units in the cabin would deploy when the cabin got to a certain altitude. They have a finite life. Time of useful consciousness at FL350 is seconds without supplementary oxygen.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Astro14


Could I lock out the other pilot, put on my mask, and dump cabin pressure? Yes, if I took advantage of him being outside the cockpit on a physiological break. The oxygen units in the cabin would deploy when the cabin got to a certain altitude. They have a finite life. Time of useful consciousness at FL350 is seconds without supplementary oxygen.


This has been my thought ever since it was reported that the jet ascended to 44,000 feet.

 

[morris]

they are swimming with the fishy. i wish they were not. i really feel for the family's. i wish the people in charge was doing a better job of it.