::MH370 incidents:: differentiate between intentional vs accidental action (baca juga perenggan terakhir) To those looking to differentiate between intentional vs accidental action and/or to support one version over the other — try doing a recap of the probability tree. My reading below; happy for any mistakes below to be corrected. 1. Incident started at about the ATC handover point a) intentional act — best place to make a break from planned flight b) accident — potentially a swiss cheese hole but only if this area was one where comms had trouble being received for any reason or incident too quick to allow it (contraindication: deliberate flight appears to have continued, over areas where reception should have been excellent, and point 3 below) 2. No Mayday at any point a) intentional act — a prime object may well be to prevent this occurring, and was successful (subject to 3) b) accident — either a failure affecting comms (but not satellite link) or pilots or reception (contraindication: deliberate flight appears to have continued, over areas where reception should have been excellent, and while there was power to satcom) 3. “mumbling of co-pilot” to MH 88 (if confirmed) a) intentional act — inability to fully silence co-pilot by this stage (precedent in Fedex 705 and United 93) b) accident - incapacitation in progress but not complete (contraindication: deliberate flight appears to have continued after) 4. Apparent altitude variations (Early “reports” were of low levels (7,000); eyewitnesses say they saw an aircraft flying unusually low — query reliability. Inmarsat believes the aircraft was above 30,000 with later pings). a) intentional act — makes sense to drop to avoid detection where likely, then climb to increase max range so ultimate resting place is reachable (if a specific location) or as far distant as possible b) accident — hard to see how this would occur 5. Loss of transponder and ACARS but not satcom a) intentional act — switched off / breakers b) accident — need an incident just enough to disable a large number of systems but not all, and not enough to prevent flight running to fuel exhaustion 6. Final southern track to fuel exhaustion a) intentional act — makes sense to make aircraft as hard to find as possible. Go the only direction (approx 90 degree arc) where you will not go over land. Minimises slick and chance of fire. b) accident — again, hard to see how maintained until exhaustion, but happy to defer to 777 people Occam suggests intentional act, as much as I would prefer it to be the other. Note that “intentional act” does not differentiate between rogue flight deck and intruder, but intruder theory seems less likely due to lack of mayday plus existence of cabin door protection. There was a mayday, for example, in Fedex 705 and United 93. Also since there does not seem to have been a specific intended destination, just take it as remote as possible, judging by the final track. Conjecture:Someone wanted the plane to disappear. An accident location nearby last known position and close to land and SAR would be fairly easily found in the shallow water, and the CVR would have captured everything. Hence run for at least 2 hours (to clear CVR) and as long as possible to deepest, most remote area reachable (if you want it never to be found), which is exactly where it went. pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-408.html#post8401172 sarjantulang
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 02:15:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015