[jwzimm]

Very unlikely. They wouldn't simply "pull all the circuit breakers" as you suggest. Not to mention they would have radioed in to report any malfunction. Also, the first step in any procedure regarding smoke/fire/fumes in the cockpit is to don oxygen masks which would keep them safe.

[solstice]

The current information is that the diversion from the route was manually entered and reported back by ACARS prior to the verbal message from the cockpit to the tower "alright, goodnight". If that is true and verifiable there is no way a fire caused the diversion.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by solstice

The current information is that the diversion from the route was manually entered and reported back by ACARS prior to the verbal message from the cockpit to the tower "alright, goodnight". If that is true and verifiable there is no way a fire caused the diversion.

This. I believe the transponders were turned off 14 minutes apart and that was prior to the last radio transmission. They would have had plenty of time to alert the ground of a problem.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by carve

Here's a hypothesis that's actually sane: an electric fire occured. They pulled all the circuit breakers and headed to the nearest airport, were overcome by fumes, and the plane continued on autopilot until it ran out of gas or when the fire ruined the airframe.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

Not sure what happen today, obviously the news was slow and everyone is fishing for answers and they found this guy (Chris Goodfellow) posting from a week ago and his theory.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358...ts/GoeVjHJaGBz

First, it was posted prior to all the facts we have today, and if you read his blog and later comments form other he back off his theory since learn the plane made 2 or 3 more course correction and flew for at least 7 hours total.

So his theory is not back up with the few fact we all have which is the plane made course correct which can only be done by a human and it flew another 7 hours and if a fire was on the plane it would have come down.

Honestly, if you look at the guy he is a pretty boy, and you know become a pilot to get women...

[bmw325i]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Not sure what happen today, obviously the news was slow and everyone is fishing for answers and they found this guy (Chris Goodfellow) posting from a week ago and his theory.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358...ts/GoeVjHJaGBz

First, it was posted prior to all the facts we have today, and if you read his blog and later comments form other he back off his theory since learn the plan made 2 or 3 more course correction and flew for at least 7 hours total.

So his theory is not back up with the few fact we all have which is the plane made course correct which can only be done by a human and it flew another 7 hours and if a fire was on the plane it would have come down.

Honestly, if you look at the guy he is a pretty boy, and you know become a pilot to get women...

Plus if a fire occurred there would be debris which most likely would have been found by now.

[kevinbahnz]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Not sure what happen today, obviously the news was slow and everyone is fishing for answers and they found this guy (Chris Goodfellow) posting from a week ago and his theory.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358...ts/GoeVjHJaGBz

First, it was posted prior to all the facts we have today, and if you read his blog and later comments form other he back off his theory since learn the plan made 2 or 3 more course correction and flew for at least 7 hours total.

So his theory is not back up with the few fact we all have which is the plane made course correct which can only be done by a human and it flew another 7 hours and if a fire was on the plane it would have come down.

Honestly, if you look at the guy he is a pretty boy, and you know become a pilot to get women...

yes, they are running out of things to say. every morning I turn on the tv to CNN in hopes that they find this plane and everyday the headlines read , breaking news update.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Not sure what happen today, obviously the news was slow and everyone is fishing for answers and they found this guy (Chris Goodfellow) posting from a week ago and his theory.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358...ts/GoeVjHJaGBz

First, it was posted prior to all the facts we have today, and if you read his blog and later comments form other he back off his theory since learn the plan made 2 or 3 more course correction and flew for at least 7 hours total.

So his theory is not back up with the few fact we all have which is the plane made course correct which can only be done by a human and it flew another 7 hours and if a fire was on the plane it would have come down.

Honestly, if you look at the guy he is a pretty boy, and you know become a pilot to get women...

With a name like "Goodfellow" it's apparent he is unable to attribute anything to malice.. It would be like asking the Pope for sex advice.

[carve]

Originally Posted by jwzimm

Very unlikely. They would simply "pull all the circuit breakers" as you suggest. Not to mention they would have radioed in to report any malfunction. Also, the first step in any procedure regarding smoke/fire/fumes in the cockpit is to don oxygen masks which would keep them safe.

If you read the article, that's exactly what you do, and what has been done when this has happened in the past. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The rest of your points are addressed as well. Oxygen masks aren't safe for fire. They have smoke hoods for that, but the filters eventually clog.

[solstice]

What is the number one fundamental prerequisite for public air travel?
Answer: That you trust the pilots.

So, with a large risk that we will never know what happened, if you were a pilot or in the airline industry what notion would you like the public to have:

That the pilots were Heroes trying desperately to plan and execute an emergency landing to save 200+ passengers or that they/he were psychopaths ready to murder 200+ passengers for some unknown reason?

Problem is it doesn't lineup that you can fly the plane 7h but not make any emergency signal on radio, satellite, flight pattern or other.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Maestro

You do not need to jam cell phones on a plane, First a plane flying at 35K ft is out of range of any cell tower. Cell tower antenna's are highly direction and point along the surface of the earth and space about 2 to 3 miles apart since your crappy low power cell phone can not transmit that far and still get reception. Second, cell in a plane are enclosed in what is know as faraday cage, which means it shield radio waves from passing through it. The plane is completely covered in metal so is makes is very hard for radio waves to pass through it. Lastly, the earth is not covered with cell towers, so if you fly high enough and not over any densely populated areas you not going to come in contact with a cell tower and have enough transmit power from your phone to connect to the tower.

Before someone say, but people have connect to a cell tower in a plane, yes and most likely it was below 5000 ft or on the ground at the airport which has high density of antenna which are more sensitive to lower power signal. Or the plane is equipped a mirco cell repeater which then relates your cell phone to the internet satellite connection son the plane. Lastly the people making calls on Flight 93 were doing so with a in-flight phones they use to have on plane.

So if you think a plane is getting hijack and you think you going to use your cell phone to phone home, think again, it will not work.

I am just adding some pictures to help people understand. I can tell you that if you are in the 2 or 3 bar range and inside a metal tube your not going to receive a signal to your phone. I am not sure why people keep latching on to the idea why someone did not call from their cell phone.

[Nate2046]

Originally Posted by carve

If you read the article, that's exactly what you do, and what has been done when this has happened in the past. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The rest of your points are addressed as well. Oxygen masks aren't safe for fire. They have smoke hoods for that, but the filters eventually clog.

The first step in any smoke/fumes in the cockpit checklist is to don o2 masks/goggles and establish communications. In fact, its a memory item, meaning you don't even consult a checklist before performing the action. I don't buy any fire theories as I can't think of any major airline accident involving fire where distress calls weren't made. I'm talking MAJOR cargo fires like ValuJet and UPS, distress calls were made and the first thing any pilot thinks of when turning off course is to alert ATC so they can clear conflicting traffic if necessary.

The writers blurb on the bottom mentions nothing about airline experience so I'm guessing he's another GA guy throwing around theories without any real experience in that world.

[Maestro]

Well it looks like they are about to call off the search, since they have no clue where the plane is and they can not waste too many expensive resources without some idea of where to look.

The one may go down in the history books as an unsolved mystery, if they do not find something.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by solstice

What is the number one fundamental prerequisite for public air travel?
Answer: That you trust the pilots.

So, with a large risk that we will never know what happened, if you were a pilot or in the airline industry what notion would you like the public to have:

That the pilots were Heroes trying desperately to plan and execute an emergency landing to save 200+ passengers or that they/he were psychopaths ready to murder 200+ passengers for some unknown reason?

Problem is it doesn't lineup that you can fly the plane 7h but not make any emergency signal on radio, satellite, flight pattern or other.

This is the point I have been making, every time someone gets on the plane you know this will be sitting in the back of their minds. How do you prove the guy flying the plane is okay. Hell I refuse to drive with some people because they are erratic, and I feel like I could die at any minute.

You can see security in an airport, but you can not see into the mind of the pilot.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Well it looks like they are about to call off the search, since they have no clue where the plane is and they can not waste too many expensive resources without some idea of where to look.

The one may go down in the history books as an unsolved mystery, if they do not find something.

What source says they're calling it off?

[Aggression]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

Good read on this issue. A fire doesn't seem so far fetched.

[KwlAznKid]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

What source says they're calling it off?

I heard this on the news as well, that they are thinking of calling it off since it's too costly

[jwzimm]

Originally Posted by carve

If you read the article, that's exactly what you do, and what has been done when this has happened in the past. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The rest of your points are addressed as well. Oxygen masks aren't safe for fire. They have smoke hoods for that, but the filters eventually clog.

Smoke hoods?!? Do you have any airplane experience? I happen to work on them every day. They have full face masks or goggles in the flight deck. There are no filters involved either. They have a dedicated oxygen feed to compressed gas bottles.

Originally Posted by Nate2046

The first step in any smoke/fumes in the cockpit checklist is to don o2 masks/goggles and establish communications. In fact, its a memory item, meaning you don't even consult a checklist before performing the action. I don't buy any fire theories as I can't think of any major airline accident involving fire where distress calls weren't made. I'm talking MAJOR cargo fires like ValuJet and UPS, distress calls were made and the first thing any pilot thinks of when turning off course is to alert ATC so they can clear conflicting traffic if necessary.

The writers blurb on the bottom mentions nothing about airline experience so I'm guessing he's another GA guy throwing around theories without any real experience in that world.

Exactly. Way too many people making assumptions and drawing conclusions when they have very little knowledge of how this stuff works.

[P1]

Anyone doing Tomnod?

[fatpanda]

Originally Posted by Aggression

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03...ectrical-fire/

Good read on this issue. A fire doesn't seem so far fetched.

"The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer."

"But let’s accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen."

if he thinks d jet flew up to 45000ft, y r 8000ft ridges an issue? thats a helluva altitude difference muahahah... nice try dear mr goodfellow

[Gle8]

There is only one person who knows what really happened.

[SteveMD]

Originally Posted by fatpanda

"The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer."

"But let’s accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen."

if he thinks d jet flew up to 45000ft, y r 8000ft ridges an issue? thats a helluva altitude difference muahahah... nice try dear mr goodfellow

The evidence that the plane flew to 45000ft and back down to 20000 is questionable. Primary radar, especially at long ranges is not very good at determining altitude or air speed. Another reason why we have transponders.

I think most pundits are starting to disregard that this actually happened.

[deeLow]

It's sitting in a hangar somewhere. Quote me