Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

I am not enthusiastic about jumping into speculation land, but I would be interested in knowing if the possibility of this being a accident followed by auto pilot is possible or totally disproven

My default assumption was they took off, an accident occurred that damaged cockpit and forced a turnaround, the damage was so great that the crew were unable to survive and turned on autopilot to stop an immediate crash, which then flew for seven hours till fuel ended, presumably with passengers pounding on the locked and hardened cockpit door.

So whilst I am in wild speculation territory I would like to know if there are some experts who might be able to say "bird strikes cannot disable radios" or "oxygen canisters do not leak" or "stewardesses can open the cockpit door" or some such.

I tend towards cockup not conspiracy myself.

(I recognise I may have missed discussions covering this and apologise if it is obvious)

View on HN

I'm not familiar with the inner workings of planes, but from what I've gathered, the timing of disabling the two tracking systems, which are on either end of the plane, is just about the same time it takes to get from one end of the plane to the other, and disable the 2nd tracking system (blackbox).

Therefore, it would be a great coincidence that both of these tracking systems would be disabled at the same time. It seems therefore that the most logical explanation is foul play.

I thought/hoped the same as you, that some sort of failure resulted in the tracking systems failing as well, and then the plane crashed, but it sadly doesn't seem as likely given the timing of events.

So you say the pilot does not have switches in the cockpit to turn equipment on or off? They have to WALK through the whole plane to turn devices on or off?! Bollocks.

Things that aren't meant to be turned on/off routinely by the pilot? why not? There's enough stuff going on in the cockpit...

The black box is in the tail of the plane, it doesn't make any sense to wire it through the whole plane so the pilot can switch it off from the cockpit.

I have no problem with your questioning my logic and my response, as I'm not expert, but keep your bollocks to yourself.

It makes perfect sense when the top priority is being able to isolate electrical systems in case of an electrical fault or an in-flight fire: http://www.askthepilot.com/malaysia-airlines-flight-370/

Why are you referring to the black box at all? ACARS and the Transponder signal the plane's position to the ground, not the black box.

I don't think it's supposed to be easy to turn off the tracking mechanisms of planes.

Wishful thinking. Aircraft are designed to be operated by professional crews -- not ex-convicts on work release. So, there are accessible circuit breakers to turn various things off.

It's called a circuit breaker. Just about every system, include the flight recorders, autopilot, and transponders can be independently turned off.

@danford was asserting that he didn't think there would be switches in the cockpit that allowed all tracking devices to be turned off. Are you countering his statement? Can you provide a citation?

I did some research on this, expecting to find a breaker labeled "CVR" on the diagram of 777 cockpit circuit breakers. Instead I found this: "the practicalities of isolating the power from the CVR fitted to the B777 are not straightforward since the CVR circuit breaker is located in the electronics bay of the arcraft instead of on the flight deck. Access to the electronics bay from within the aircraft is via a hatch in the cabin floor adjacent to the front left door of the aircraft"

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20777-...

Where did you hear the black box was turned off?

Apparently the door can be opened.

They enter a code and if the cockpit doesn't reject it within a certain time frame the door opens.

See Helios flight 522.

the pilots were shortly on the radio after the deactivation of ACARS (a signalling system). while this doesn't completely disprove your theory about the autopilot it still hints towards malicious intent.

There would have been calls/texts/tweets/facebook posts from the passengers if they were aware that something terrible was happening whether accidental or intentional.

Do they have satellite phones? Over the ocean there is no cell reception.

If there was indication that something was awry the passengers would have had plenty of time before reaching the open ocean to use various forms of communication.

It is very unlikely (but has occasionally happened) that a cellphone would get reception at 35,000 feet.

The plane reportedly flew under the radar after turning away from Kuala Lumpur.

source?

This is a good question. What are the odds that someone on the flight had a sat cell? If so, would it have worked in those conditions?

Planes have flown for hours without any human intervention. That part of it is entirely feasible.

We are almost on the same page: here's my theory purely based on what I read!

1.Something happened like explosive decompression, Explosive decompression occurs at a rate swifter than that at which air can escape from the lungs, typically in less than 0.1 to 0.5 seconds.Everybody onboard(including pilots) would have died in less than a second due to castrophic mechanical failure which caused explosive decompression.

2.Plane was on autopilot there after ,nobody complained since nobody was alive.Fell silent into the ocean and rests there.

3.Plane blewup and disintegrated just like an endevaour....leaving only ash...nothing was left.

4.I dont know why boeing company is not talking about this much, they just are silent ....the biggest benefactor if pilot theory is right is boeing.Boeing benefits alot if its pilot error which caused the incident.

5.Boeing looses a lot if its mechanical or structural or some design failure...."The longer-range 777-300ER and 777-200LR variants entered service in 2004 and 2006 respectively"...they are relatively new...however malaysian airlines is boeing 777-200ER 1997 release...is it possible to have some structural or design or mechanical failure which caused explosive decompression...even pilots die in less than a second...if it occurs.

6.Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Cracks Found in the Wings of 40 New...this clearly shows even the latest 787 is not safe leave alone an old plane like boeing 777-200ER.

7.If its done deliberately by some pilot why nobody is claiming credit for it...ofcourse he wouldnt have done it for himself.

The whole media is trying to protect the company "boeing" by showing pilot has conspirators...I cannot see even 1% of people questioning boeing the company...

Latest Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Cracks Found in the Wings of 40 New....

All the more we should question boeing...

WRT 787, the cracks were a consequence of two things. The new(ish) production methods involved in the aircraft, and the absurdly aggressive outsourcing of the production. The 787 is (was?) in many ways at the bleeding edge of carbon fiber manufacture. Combine that with the stupid notion their management had of sending out 99% of manufacturing outside of final assembly to dozens of different companies (as a consequence of contractors sub-contracting work) meant that they didn't find the design flaws until late in the game. This particular 787 issue doesn't provide any evidence of potential issues with other aircraft.

I am off mark by bring 787 in this discussion may be but I must say 777 and 787 are same company, I cannot see not one time Boeing guys came out and spoke to media or press, its really disappointing.

We just have 2 companies monopoly of aircraft industry.....I am looking at young startups which will start in aircraft manufacturing industry and change the game.

Nearly half of your "theory" (which isn't based off of any sort of clinically proven fact, btw) is incorrect.

First, the 777 is not an "old" plane. It's a very reliable and advanced aircraft with tons of redundancy; things don't just fail nowadays like they used to. Despite its age, there is absolutely zero reason why there should be a structural or mechanical failure. These aircraft aren't Chevrolets, they're built to stand up to daily abuse that they will likely never experience during their lifetime. Tell that to UPS and FedEx, which are still using 727s from the 70s.

Explosive decompression, even if it did happen, does not kill instantly. See also: Aloha Flight 243. Again, the 777 has very advanced pressurization systems. No reason that it should have killed everyone immediately.

Disintegration should have left debris. There was none.

Also, your statement about the 787 is irrelevant and misleading. The cracks found in the wings are hairline, and are caused by its composite construction. Things like this occur during the birth of an aircraft and get ironed out over the years, just like software. The 787 has nothing to do with the 777, which is a tried-and-true metal aircraft, and as I've reiterated before, age is irrelevant in these types of things. There has not been a single 777 fatality to date except the SFO Asiana disaster last year, which was caused by pilot error. The 777 seems to be a fairly bulletproof aircraft.

Conspiracy theories aren't really the best approach to anything. Boeing has proven itself with the 777, and the 787 is a revolutionary design that will have some problems, just like the first jet engines did in the 50s.

Let's leave the speculation to the NTSB and just tell who we love we love them. It's no use twisting around old evidence or constructing conspiracy theories at this point.

Morbius: Thank you for accepting atleast 50% of my theory was wrong...may be u r conceding that 50% might be right.That's good enough for me.

Here's where I got it almost right: "2.Plane was on autopilot there after ,nobody complained since nobody was alive.Fell silent into the ocean and rests there" The plane according to most was found near indian ocean some 2000 kms...it flew on autopilot for 7 hours.

>>Disintegration should have left debris. There was none. Debris is found some 2500 kms away..now resting in the ocean.

Boeing is being sued by one law firm today:"4.I dont know why boeing company is not talking about this much, they just are silent ....the biggest benefactor if pilot theory is right is boeing.Boeing benefits alot if its pilot error which caused the incident."

>> No "consipracy theory here" its indeed looking more like mechanical failure and the pilots died due to depressurization...boeing should own responsibility.

I might be wrong abt 787 , it was too much stretch to bring two 787 and 777 together but they are from the same company, that is my point,boeing needs to own some responsibility for this kind of failure either mechanical or design failure. They have put an off switch for ACARS?..why did they have off switch in the first place? Is it not design failure?

Finally they have only 2 hours of recording of cockpit in blackbox for an international flight which might be flying 7 hours...?Explain that design failure...how can they only have 2 hour recording...even kid will tell 2 hours is not enough for 250 million price tag.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com