Can anyone Identify this airfield?

[airattackimages]

triple 7 has a short history but electrical failures, fires and faulty batteries and battery compartment problems are consistent, no matter what Boeing says

I think the pilots are being unfairly vilified.

I think there was a fire, simultaneous full electrical failure and a lot of smoke in the cabin and cockpit.

no way to radio a distress signal - and as to the transponder..the pilots may not have noticed the power failure if it went in a swift domino style.

everyone is assuming someone switched off the com. and transponder, but that will have to be proven to me...I wont assume the worst in this case

the pilot made an immediate turn in a cockpit filled with smoke and no electrical aids at all, a dark cockpit in the middle of the night and choking on toxic smoke - hand flying a 777 literally in the blind.

I doubt he could even see the whiskey compass.

Its possible some systems were working, the AP for one - if they recognized that and turned with the AP - and then were overcome by fumes that would explain the aircraft remaining in flight till the fuel was gone

Everything is an assumption at this point, including the scenario you gave. For the record I lean towards agreeing with your scenario, just think it's funny that you dismissed any other assumptions as assumptions then gave your own assumption.

 

[robert41]

i didnt jump into anything on my comments,,i had been watching the "world news" and a Malaysian spokes person was the one who said..."we now are looking at the pilot for wrong doing,we found a sophisticated flight simulator hidden in his home with equipment he could have used to practice his takeover".............so why were my comments jumping to conclusions or jumping the gun in accusations...i just wrote MY feelings about what i heard the "authorities" say. period..

No offense to you Dave.
Just trying to make some sense of everything.
The "facts" seem to change every week.
Here is an interesting article on flight simming. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/sunday-review/the-pilots-in-the-basement.html?hp&_r=1

 

[heywooood]

Everything is an assumption at this point, including the scenario you gave. For the record I lean towards agreeing with your scenario, just think it's funny that you dismissed any other assumptions as assumptions then gave your own assumption.

isn't that what public forums are for? lol

 

[huub vink]

Dave,

No worries, my comment was to nobody in particular. But I had the feeling that the aircrew and the pilots in particular were already considered guilty even before any proof had been found. Like suddenly now Boeing is considered the main cause for this disaster.

As I said before, I don't think we should jump to conclusion.

Cheers,
Huub

 

[airattackimages]

isn't that what public forums are for? lol

lol, yes

 

[sbp]

Mh370.

Heywooood,

Same hunch hear. No, "black boxes", yet but a present valuable document is available now. That would be the cargo hold manifest, if not falsified, would certainly add credibility to this theory. (Ref: AirTran DC-9 accident located in the Florida Everglades). AirTran, in like manner as MH370, made turn back to departure airport.....

SBP

 

[airattackimages]

Heywooood,

Same hunch hear. No, "black boxes", yet but a present valuable document is available now. That would be the cargo hold manifest, if not falsified, would certainly add credibility to this theory. (Ref: AirTran DC-9 accident located in the Florida Everglades). AirTran, in like manner as MH370, made turn back to departure airport.....

SBP

I thought you were already blaming Boeing? Now you're blaming the cargo customers?

 

[sbp]

Mh370

Many facet's to this tragic aircraft accident, my friend. Just looking at all sides. At this point, I'm not pinning, "blame", on anyone. In my original post I was expressing my humble opinion.

SBP

 

[airattackimages]

Why the sudden change of opinion?

 

[SkippyBing]

triple 7 has a short history but electrical failures, fires and faulty batteries and battery compartment problems are consistent, no matter what Boeing says

Are you sure you don't mean the 787? The 777 has been around almost two decades now and has had, I think, two major accidents one through pilot error at San Francisco and one through fuel freezing at London Heathrow.

 

[heywooood]

Are you sure you don't mean the 787? The 777 has been around almost two decades now and has had, I think, two major accidents one through pilot error at San Francisco and one through fuel freezing at London Heathrow.

note all incidents referring to smoke in the cockpit/cabin or references to acrid odors and or fires in the cargo holds...if those fires did not start in the holds but could be blamed on the cargo I don't think Boeing would object
http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/type/b772/boeing-777-200

this is interesting also....
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...0er-series-airplanes-rechargeable-lithium-ion

whenever large mfg's want to cut costs, people end up paying with their lives - just ask GM, Chrysler, Ford and Toyota

 

[SkippyBing]

note all incidents referring to smoke in the cockpit/cabin or references to acrid odors and or fires in the cargo holds...if those fires did not start in the holds but could be blamed on the cargo I don't think Boeing would object
http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/type/b772/boeing-777-200

this is interesting also....
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...0er-series-airplanes-rechargeable-lithium-ion

whenever large mfg's want to cut costs, people end up paying with their lives - just ask GM, Chrysler, Ford and Toyota

I'm not convinced, of the 8 incidents that mention fire on that site, 6 were false indications, 1 was a mobile phone/laptop battery fire and 1 was an actual cockpit fire. So that's 1 fire due to the airframe in 18 years of operations, and that one was on the ground at the time.

Of the 7 smoke incidents there was 1 false alarm, 1 steam from the air conditioning being mis-identified, 1 unknown, 2 caused by bearing failure in cooling supply fans, which were both isolated before landing, and 2 in the cockpit, one of which was isolated before landing the other appears to have come from the nose gear bay.

For comparison, the A330-200 which has been around for a similar time period has, on the same database, 1 cabin electrical fire, 1 engine fire, 1 air conditioning malfunction leading to a fire indication and 1 false alarm in the cargo bay, along with 1 smoke in the cockpit incident.

So the A330 has had three times the actual fire incidents and the 777 has had five times the actual smoke incidents. Considering the numbers of both types in operation I'd say that the chance of fire or smoke on either type is statistically very small. Certainly I've seen more actual smoke reported on a mixed fleet of 260 odd helicopters in the last year than on both types of airliner put together and the helicopters are flying a lot less hours. Worryingly the 787 seems to be managing more fires in a year than the 777 has had in 18.