Debris from aircraft wreckage found in Bay of Bengal

Searchers for Flight 370 are beginning to refocus on the Northern Arc theory.  Here is a promising find:

BD News 24 wrote:An Australian exploration company says it may have traced the debris of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the Bay of Bengal.

GeoResonance says its research has identified materials on the ocean floor that may be from a plane, reports 7News.

The spot the company reportedly located the ‘materials’ in the Bay is 5,000 kilometres from where the authorities have been looking for the plane.

Flight MH370 went off the radar while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on Mar 8 with 239 people on board.

Six weeks have now passed and extensive searches in the Indian Ocean have failed to yield results.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Monday said the chance of finding floating debris from the jetliner was highly unlikely.

He said a new phase of the search will focus on a far larger area of the Indian Ocean floor.

Malaysia, China, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Britain and the United States are assisting Australia in conducting the most expensive search in aviation history.

The US Navy Bluefin-21 underwater drone searching the seabed has so far failed to find any sign of the plane.

“We are still baffled and disappointed that we haven’t been able to find undersea wreckage based on those detections,” Reuters quoted Abbott as telling reporters.

He said the new search area, which spans 700km by 80km (435 miles by 40 miles), could take between six and eight months to completely examine, at a cost to Australia of as much as A$60 million ($55.69 million).


But GeoResonance believes authorities have been “looking in the wrong place”.

It started its own search for the missing aircraft on Mar 10.

“The technology that we use was originally designed to find nuclear warheads, submarines… our team in the Ukraine decided we should try and help,” the Adelaide-based 7News quoted David Pope from GeoResonance as saying.

The company has surveyed over 2,000,000 square kilometres of the possible crash zone, using images obtained from satellites and aircraft.

Scientists focused their efforts north of the flight’s last known location, using over 20 technologies to analyse the data including a nuclear reactor.

Pope said they were “very excited” at finding what they believed to be the wreckage of a commercial airliner.

Pavel Kursa from GeoResonance told 7News: “We identified chemical elements and materials that make up a Boeing 777… these are aluminium, titanium, copper, steel alloys and other materials.”

The team sent an initial report to the authorities while the black box still had two weeks of battery power left.

They said they verified the findings by analysing images from the same area on Mar 5, three days before the plane’s disappearance.

“The wreckage wasn’t there prior to the disappearance of MH370,” Pope said.

The full report was submitted on Apr 15.

“We’re not trying to say that it definitely is MH370, however it is a lead we feel should be followed up,” Pope told 7News.

Source: Bd news24

http://www.bangladeshchronicle.net/index.php/2014/04/missing-plane-wreckage-found-in-bay-of-bengal/

Mmmmm.... not convinced.... we shall see....!

Well, as I've said all along, you can't be convinced of anything. All any of us have, realistically, are questions. Meh, the Bay of Bengal is as good as anywhere to look.

But there are other alternatives to start looking into, as well. Such as land, not sea. We make all of these assumptions--the plane flew south; it crashed into the sea--and in the end they are no more than guesses.

The Southern Arc search has proved fruitless. It's probably time to consider alternatives.

Original Quill wrote:Well, as I've said all along, you can't be convinced of anything.  All any of us have, realistically, are questions.  Meh, the Bay of Bengal is as good as anywhere to look.

But there are other alternatives to start looking into, as well.  Such as land, not sea.  We make all of these assumptions--the plane flew south; it crashed into the sea--and in the end they are no more than guesses.

The Southern Arc search has proved fruitless.  It's probably time to consider alternatives.

Until they have conclusive evidence that they have found MH370,they should say absolutely nothing.

This half hearted announcement is cruel for the bereaved families.

In the early hours, an airplane over the sea completely vanished. This was not the Malaysian Boeing 777 that is now missing but an Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro that disappeared above the Atlantic Ocean on June 1 2009. There are striking parallels between the two incidents. The Malaysia Airlines flight was at an altitude of 35,000 feet, while the Air France Airbus A330-203 was 3,000 higher at 38,000ft, both planes were state of the art and neither sent a distress signal.



Today, the world waits to find out anything about the fate of flight MH370 from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and the 239 passengers on board after air traffic controllers lost touch with it on Saturday. Ships and aircraft from around the world have been deployed to scour the area, on the maritime border between Malaysia and Vietnam.

As news emerged about mystery passengers travelling using stolen passports, questions were raised about whether it was a bomb or a hijacking attempt.

This situation is an eerie echo of what happened over the Atlantic Ocean five years ago. Air France flight 447 was travelling from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, with 216 passengers and 12 crew. It took five days to find the wreckage but the investigation was hampered because the black boxes, which record the conversations of the pilots and data about controls and sensors, were missing. It took nearly two years to get them from the ocean floor.

The final report on the crash, released in July 2012, found that the aircraft crashed after pilots did not respond effectively to problems with the speed sensors and were not able to correct the plane’s trajectory when things went wrong. Ice crystals blocked the pitot tubes, which help determine air speed, the autopilot disconnected, but even when the tubes thawed, pilots did not know how to react, leading to an aerodynamic stall. Leaked transcripts provide a picture of what happened.

AF447 was four hours into its 11-hour overnight journey and passengers were settling down to sleep. Two hours in, captain Marc Dubois had taken a routine break. His deputy, David Robert, an accomplished flier with 6,500 hours of experience, was capable of coping with the tropical thunderstorm ahead. Pierre-Cedric Bonin was at the controls. He was the most junior but had form flying on commercial jets.

Just after 2am Bonin told the cabin crew to prepare for turbulence as they entered the storm. Within 15 minutes, everyone on board would be dead. Below is an abbreviated version of the transcript from Popular Mechanics magazine.

The cockpit becomes illuminated. Bonin asks what it is and Dubois reassures him it is St Elmo’s Fire, an electrical fluorescence not uncommon in equatorial thunderstorms. Robert pushes the call button and lets the flight attendant know that there will be turbulence.

The two co-pilots discuss the high external temperature, which prevents them flying at their desired altitude. They turn on the anti-icing system to stop ice weighing down the flight surfaces. As the air temperature reduces, the pitot tubes ice and an alarm sounds to warn that autopilot had disengaged.

02:10:06 (Bonin) I have the controls.

Bonin pulls back on the side stick to ascend, even though he has discussed with Robert how this could not happen safely because of the high external temperature.

A warning sounds as they leave their programmed altitude. “Stall! Stall!” a computerised voice that repeatedly calls out in English, followed by a loud sound called a “cricket”. To recover from a potentially dangerous stall, pilots are trained to push the controls forward to gain speed.

“Stall!” will blare through the cockpit 75 times. Throughout, Bonin does the opposite of what he must, and keeps pulling back on the stick.

The plane climbs 7,000 feet per minute and loses speed.

02:10:27 (Robert) Pay attention to your speed.

02:10:28 (Bonin) OK, OK, I’m descending.

02:10:30 (Robert) Stabilise…

Bonin reduces back pressure on the stick. The plane accelerates to 223 knots. The stall warning stops. For a moment, the co-pilots regain control. Robert pushes a button to summon the captain.

Soon, Bonin increases back pressure on the stick, raising the nose of the plane. “Stall!” sounds again.

02:10:55 (Robert) Damn it!

By this time both pitot tubes have thawed and all systems are fully functional.

02:11:03 (Bonin) I’m in TOGA, huh?

TOGA is an acronym for Take Off, Go Around. Flight experts have discussed that Bonin may have misunderstood his situation at this point and, possibly panicking, reverted to flying the plane as if it was close to the ground.

02:11:06 (Robert) Damn it, is [the captain] coming or not?

The plane now reaches its maximum altitude. With engines at full power, the nose up, it briefly moves horizontally and then drops toward the ocean.

02:11:21 (Robert) We still have the engines! What the hell is happening? I don’t understand what’s happening.

On an airliner the co-pilot’s controls operate independently. It is assumed Robert was unaware that Bonin continued to pull back the side stick. The plane falls faster toward the sea.

02:11:32 (Bonin) Damn it, I don’t have control of the plane, I don’t have control of the plane at all!

Robert takes control momentarily but then Bonin takes them back.

A minute and a half after the crisis began, the captain returns. The stall warning continues to blare.

02:11:43 (Captain) What the hell are you doing?

02:11:45 (Bonin) We’ve lost control of the plane!

02:11:47 (Robert) We’ve totally lost control of the plane. We don’t understand at all... We’ve tried everything.

The plane has returned to its initial altitude but is falling fast. With its nose pitched 15 degrees up, and a forward speed of 100 knots, it is descending at a rate of 10,000 feet per minute, at an angle of 41.5 degrees. It will maintain this angle with little variation all the way to the sea.

The captain does not take physical control of the plane. He sits behind Robert and Bonin to give instructions but does not mention that Bonin has the stick pulled back.

02:12:14 (Robert) What do you think? What do you think? What should we do?

02:12:15 (Captain) Well, I don’t know!

As the stall warning continues to blare, the three pilots discuss the situation. No one mentions the word “stall”. The men briefly discuss whether they are in fact climbing or descending, before agreeing that they are indeed descending. As the plane approaches 10,000 feet, Robert tries to take back the controls, and pushes forward on the stick, but the plane is in “dual input” mode, and so the system averages his inputs with those of Bonin, who continues to pull back.

02:13:40 (Robert) Climb... climb... climb... climb...

02:13:40 (Bonin) But I’ve had the stick back the whole time!

02:13:42 (Captain) No, no, no... Don’t climb... no, no.

02:13:43 (Robert) Descend, then... Give me the controls... Give me the controls!

Bonin gives Robert the controls and he puts the nose down. The plane picks up speed but is still descending fast. As they near 2,000 feet, the aircraft’s sensors detect the fast-approaching surface and trigger a new alarm. There is no time left to build up speed by pushing the plane’s nose forward into a dive. Bonin once again takes back the controls and pulls his side stick all the way back.

02:14:23 (Robert) Damn it, we’re going to crash... This can’t be happening!

02:14:25 (Bonin) But what’s happening?

02:14:27 (Captain) Ten degrees of pitch...

1.4 seconds later, the recording ends.

There are some striking differences between the two flights, andy.  One, we knew where the Air France aircraft went down as we knew more-or-less precisely its route of travel.  

Two, the Air France flight had no conscious human factor involved, although human error was certainly a part.  Flight MH 370 manifested intentional human interference with the expected normal flight plan of the aircraft.  The reversal over the Gulf of Thialand, the turning off of the transponder and disabling of the ACARS--both indicating intentional attempts to hide--and the turn to the north over the Malacca Strait.

The erratic behaviour of Flight MH 370 is the one factor that we cannot account for.  What was going on?  For what purpose?  If we know that a conscious, intelligent human element was behind the disappearance of the aircraft, then we know we don't know anything.

All we have are questions.

Good evening Folks.

This is interesting & I stress that I do not know anyone involved with or mentioned in the text.And it's probably one of the most credible theories that I've heard of so far.


The 777 has a history of problems with a battery in the electronics bay underneath the cockpit, which is accessed

by a floor hatch behind the flight engineer's seat.

The battery overheated and a fire started in the electronics bay. Located right next to the battery are the

electrical busses for the ACARs system, the transponder, all the radios except the VHF, one of the two autopilots,

and critically, the oxygen lines for the crews' oxygen masks.

After the co-pilot signed off, smoke appeared in the cockpit. The pilot immediately did exactly what he was

trained to do, turn to the closest landing strip. The crew tried to fight the fire with onboard extinguishers, but

quickly realized there was no oxygen in their masks, and the fire was out of control.

Only the VHF radio was working, but it has a range of only 220 miles at that altitude: they sent a Mayday call but

it was out of range of any receiver.

They had only two choices:

(1) Descend and land on the water. This would take approximately 15 minutes, by which time the entire front of the

plane would be engulfed in flames and could not be flown and everyone would die on impact.

(2) Climb to 45,000 feet in an attempt to put the fire out because there's no oxygen at that altitude, and without

O2 the fire could not continue to burn.

Radar records show they took the only possible choice which was potentially survivable, and climbed to 45,000

feet. The crew used their emergency firefighting hoods during the ascent, which provided a few minutes of oxygen.
The pilot programed into the redundant autopilot: Descend to 12,000 feet (where there is breathable air) and turn

south towards where he guessed Kuala Lumpur probably was at this point using seat-of-the-pants reckoning.The radar

records show the plane did this.

By the time the fire was out, however, everyone on the plane except the crew was dead from asphyxiation.

The plane descended on autopilot as programmed, but the crew was also doomed: There was not enough oxygen in the

fire-fighting hoods to survive the time of descent. By the time the plane got down to 12,000 feet, everyone was

dead. The autopilot turned the plane south as programmed, and it flew until it ran out of fuel.

This is the only explanation my friend the pilot said which explains everything. If they ever find the black box,

it will show all avionics burned out and total silence during the (only part recorded) last 120 minutes.

Well Shady, that's the first plausible theory I have heard, and as you say, takes in everything. Well worth thinking about.

Sassy wrote:Well Shady, that's the first plausible theory I have heard, and as you say, takes in everything.   Well worth thinking about.  

Good evening Sassy.

Funnily enough,this theory was scoffed at by a bloke who reckons he's a 777 mechanic (but I reckon he was talking cobblers).

In a very general kind of way,this theory would sort of explain everything.

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:Well Shady, that's the first plausible theory I have heard, and as you say, takes in everything.   Well worth thinking about.  

Good evening Sassy.

Funnily enough,this theory was scoffed at by a bloke who reckons he's a 777 mechanic (buy I reckon he was talking cobblers).

In a very general kind of way,this theory would sort of explain everything.

Who is a 777 mechanic?

Sassy wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good evening Sassy.

Funnily enough,this theory was scoffed at by a bloke who reckons he's a 777 mechanic (buy I reckon he was talking cobblers).

In a very general kind of way,this theory would sort of explain everything.

Who is a 777 mechanic?

The 777 mechanic is the person who scoffed at the theory.

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Who is a 777 mechanic?

The 777 mechanic is the person who scoffed at the theory.

Riiiiiiiiigghhhhtt! On a forum or IRL? Anyway, the theory is better than any others I have heard. Maybe one day they will find the black box so we can find out. Think it's going to be a long time though.

Sassy wrote:

Shady wrote:

The 777 mechanic is the person who scoffed at the theory.

Riiiiiiiiigghhhhtt!   On a forum or IRL?   Anyway, the theory is better than any others I have heard.   Maybe one day they will find the black box so we can find out.   Think it's going to be a long time though.

On a forum or IRL?.......Kind of both.

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Riiiiiiiiigghhhhtt!   On a forum or IRL?   Anyway, the theory is better than any others I have heard.   Maybe one day they will find the black box so we can find out.   Think it's going to be a long time though.

On a forum or IRL?.......Kind of both.

     Ok, unless you want to tell me, we'll leave it there lol

Sassy wrote:

Shady wrote:

On a forum or IRL?.......Kind of both.

      Ok, unless you want to tell me, we'll leave it there lol

This is the best reply I can come up with.

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:

      Ok, unless you want to tell me, we'll leave it there lol

This is the best reply I can come up with.

I think I sort of get it, I think lol

Sassy wrote:

Shady wrote:



This is the best reply I can come up with.

I think I sort of get it, I think lol

Well I'm glad you do because I haven't got a f ing clue what I'm on about    

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I think I sort of get it, I think lol

Well I'm glad you do because I haven't got a f ing clue what I'm on about    

  
  

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I think I sort of get it, I think lol

Well I'm glad you do because I haven't got a f ing clue what I'm on about    

No change there then  ::D:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: 

Gd effort, Shady.  But it does sound like someone cherry picked the evidence to write a script for us.  But that's what your pilot friend was trying to do, eh?  So, that's fine.

The only thing I would mention is that Boeing itself said the 777 could not climb to 45,000-feet.  Too heavy.  Top ceiling is about 35,000-feet.

This was said by Boeing before any part of a full theory was proffered.  It was raised when someone suggested this was how the passengers died, which your friends theory poses, too. But it's an open question, like anything else.

Other than that, it's plausible.

Not quite:

The 777 is capable of cruising at altitudes up to 43,100 feet.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_facts.page

Seems that holds up quite well Shady.

Original Quill wrote:Gd effort, Shady.  But it does sound like someone cherry picked the evidence to write a script for us.  But that's what your pilot friend was trying to do, eh?  So, that's fine.

The only thing I would mention is that Boeing itself said the 777 could not climb to 45,000-feet.  Too heavy.  Top ceiling is about 35,000-feet.

This was said by Boeing before any part of a full theory was proffered.  It was raised when someone suggested this was how the passengers died, which your friends theory poses, too.  But it's an open question, like anything else.

Other than that, it's plausible.

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill as I said,I do not know any of the people mentioned regarding the theory.......The likes of me don't get to mingle with airline pilots as I am far too humble to associate with the great & the good.

As you say,it is plausible & like any other theory which could be intermingled with other facts to form a script,it's as good as any.

Sassy wrote:Not quite:

The 777 is capable of cruising at altitudes up to 43,100 feet.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_facts.page

Seems that holds up quite well Shady.

Good afternoon Sassy.

I would guess that there is a recommended ceiling height for aircraft but I would also imagine that the aircraft is actually capable of higher altitudes.

Can't they just point the thing upwards & make it climb?

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:Not quite:

The 777 is capable of cruising at altitudes up to 43,100 feet.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_facts.page

Seems that holds up quite well Shady.

Good afternoon Sassy.

I would guess that there is a recommended ceiling height for aircraft but I would also imagine that the aircraft is actually capable of higher altitudes.

Can't they just point the thing upwards & make it climb?

If that is a cruising height, it must be able to go higher, cruising height means it can stay there for some time.

Sassy wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Sassy.

I would guess that there is a recommended ceiling height for aircraft but I would also imagine that the aircraft is actually capable of higher altitudes.

Can't they just point the thing upwards & make it climb?

If that is a cruising height, it must be able to go higher, cruising height means it can stay there for some time.

Sounds good to me.

Shady wrote:

Sassy wrote:

If that is a cruising height, it must be able to go higher, cruising height means it can stay there for some time.

Sounds good to me.

Certainly means that the theory holds water. However, we won't know until if and when they find the black box.

Shady wrote:This is the only explanation my friend the pilot said which explains everything. If they ever find the black box,

I took that statement to mean that this was "your friend the pilot's" theory, and that he is a friend of yours.

Sorry. The rest of my post is my feeling. It is a solid theory.

Original Quill wrote:Gd effort, Shady.  But it does sound like someone cherry picked the evidence to write a script for us.  But that's what your pilot friend was trying to do, eh?  So, that's fine.

The only thing I would mention is that Boeing itself said the 777 could not climb to 45,000-feet.  Too heavy.  Top ceiling is about 35,000-feet.

This was said by Boeing before any part of a full theory was proffered.  It was raised when someone suggested this was how the passengers died, which your friends theory poses, too.  But it's an open question, like anything else.

Other than that, it's plausible.

A Boeing 777 can cruise at over 43,000 feet which is within it' safety certification and with the required safety margins for error 45,000 feet is not beyond it.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Gd effort, Shady.  But it does sound like someone cherry picked the evidence to write a script for us.  But that's what your pilot friend was trying to do, eh?  So, that's fine.

The only thing I would mention is that Boeing itself said the 777 could not climb to 45,000-feet.  Too heavy.  Top ceiling is about 35,000-feet.

This was said by Boeing before any part of a full theory was proffered.  It was raised when someone suggested this was how the passengers died, which your friends theory poses, too.  But it's an open question, like anything else.

Other than that, it's plausible.

A Boeing 777 can cruise at over 43,000 feet which is within it' safety certification and with the required safety margins for error 45,000 feet is not beyond it.

You'd have thought he'd have checked it first, it's on the Boeing web site!

Just out of interest Concorde's safety certificate gave a safe cruising height of 60,000 feet.

Irn Bru wrote:Just out of interest Concorde's safety certificate gave a safe cruising height of 60,000 feet.

Good lord, shame it doesn't fly anymore.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Gd effort, Shady.  But it does sound like someone cherry picked the evidence to write a script for us.  But that's what your pilot friend was trying to do, eh?  So, that's fine.

The only thing I would mention is that Boeing itself said the 777 could not climb to 45,000-feet.  Too heavy.  Top ceiling is about 35,000-feet.

This was said by Boeing before any part of a full theory was proffered.  It was raised when someone suggested this was how the passengers died, which your friends theory poses, too.  But it's an open question, like anything else.

Other than that, it's plausible.

A Boeing 777 can cruise at over 43,000 feet which is within it' safety certification and with the required safety margins for error 45,000 feet is not beyond it.

When it came up, the engineers at Boeing said that the aircraft couldn't fly to 45,000-ft. I still take their word for it.

Well you would, heresay over evidence on the Boeing site. In fact, the link I gave had a chart of the upper cruising height for all their planes, and they were all above 40,000 ft.

This is from Yahoo QA... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140315000830AAS30UH

[Was] Flight 370 flying above 777 service ceiling?

Yahoo Questions wrote:[Question:]The NYT is reporting that flight 370 climbed to 45,000 feet. Wikipedia states the service ceiling of the 777 is 43,100 feet [as does Boeing]. Assuming both sources are correct, would a good pilot [take flight 370 to 45,000 ft.?

Yahoo Answers wrote:[Answer:] A jet airliner (B-777) is unlikely to be able to exceed 40,000 ft altitude with full power -

It is [only] likely to be able to reach FL 430 [43,000 ft.] the last hour of cruise, fuel tanks near empty -
Meaning light enough -

Or could never reach or even exceed FL 430 1 hour after after takeoff -
That airplane probably carried 6 hours fuel in the tanks to complete the PEK flight -

I do not think that NYT, CNN, ABC news and "Y!A" experts know anything about B-777 -

The 747 I used to fly were "certificated" to 45,100 ft -
On a 12 hours long flight, we initially climbed to 29,000 ft -
Could not get any higher because too heavy -
Most of the cruise we averaged 35 to 37,000 ft -
We terminated cruise at 39 or 41,000 ft for the last hour before descent and landing -

Any other jet airliner works the same way -

Flying at low level, say 1,000 or 2,000 ft AGL...?
Well, your 4 hours of fuel left in tanks to go to PEK would dwindle to 25-30% less -
Jet engines are fuel guzzlers at low level -
In doing so, their fuel would have been sufficient for 3 hours low level flying -
And their speed at low level would have dropped as well -

Look for a 777 on an airfield in Malaysia, Sumatra, Burma...
Port Blair, maybe...?
Source:
Retired airline pilot -

This is from a trained 777 pilot.  The certification of the 43,100-ft. altitude is with the Pratt Whitney powered aircraft, unloaded, operating under optimal test conditions.  It is my understanding the Malaysian Airlines Fl 370 had some 240 passengers plus baggage, with full or near-full fuel tanks, and was powered by Rolls Royce engines.

Very little research needed to find the right answer. You should spend less time stalking people, and more time learning the facts.

Yahoo questions over the Boeing website giving the facts. My god I'm glad I'd never need you as a lawyer.   


Boeing 777 Facts

Since the first 777 entered service in June 1995, the airplane has flown almost five million flights and accumulated more than 18 million flight hours.
There are 3 million parts in a 777 provided by 500 suppliers from around the world.
In 2009, the 777 program delivered its 777th 777.
On Nov. 9-10, 2005, a Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner set a new world record for distance traveled non-stop by a commercial jetliner. The 777-200LR set a record distance of 11,664 nautical miles (21,601 km) on a route traveling eastbound from Hong Kong to London (Heathrow). The flight lasted 22 hours and 42 minutes. The achievement was recognized by the U.S. National Aeronautics Association, The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale and the Guinness Book of Records.
On May 30, 1995, the 777 became the first airplane in aviation history to earn U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval to fly extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) at entry into service. On that date, the FAA awarded 180-minute ETOPS to the Pratt & Whitney-powered Boeing 777.
The 777 is capable of cruising at altitudes up to 43,100 feet.
Boeing engineers designed and electronically pre-assembled the 777 using computers. New laboratory facilities enabled the various airplane systems to be tested together as a single integrated entity in simulated flight conditions, before the first jetliner took to the air.
The data shared and transferred on the network during the design phase of the 777 program totaled 1,847,930,000,000 bytes of production data.
Today's 777 operators enjoy a 99.3 percent dispatch reliability rate -- the highest amongst all twin-aisle airplanes in service today.
The flight-control system for the 777 airplane is different from those on other Boeing airplane designs. Rather than have the airplane rely on cables to move the ailerons, elevator, and rudder, Boeing designed the 777 with fly-by-wire technology. As a result, the 777 uses wires to carry electrical signals from the pilot control wheel, column, and pedals to a primary flight computer.
A lightly loaded 777 can accelerate from zero to 60 mph (96 km/h) in less than six seconds.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_facts.page

Original Quill wrote:This is from Yahoo QA... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140315000830AAS30UH

[Was] Flight 370 flying above 777 service ceiling?

Yahoo Questions wrote:[Question:]The NYT is reporting that flight 370 climbed to 45,000 feet. Wikipedia states the service ceiling of the 777 is 43,100 feet [as does Boeing]. Assuming both sources are correct, would a good pilot [take flight 370 to 45,000 ft.?

Yahoo Answers wrote:[Answer:] A jet airliner (B-777) is unlikely to be able to exceed 40,000 ft altitude with full power -

It is [only] likely to be able to reach FL 430 [43,000 ft.] the last hour of cruise, fuel tanks near empty -
Meaning light enough -

Or could never reach or even exceed FL 430 1 hour after after takeoff -
That airplane probably carried 6 hours fuel in the tanks to complete the PEK flight -

I do not think that NYT, CNN, ABC news and "Y!A" experts know anything about B-777 -

The 747 I used to fly were "certificated" to 45,100 ft -
On a 12 hours long flight, we initially climbed to 29,000 ft -
Could not get any higher because too heavy -
Most of the cruise we averaged 35 to 37,000 ft -
We terminated cruise at 39 or 41,000 ft for the last hour before descent and landing -

Any other jet airliner works the same way -

Flying at low level, say 1,000 or 2,000 ft AGL...?
Well, your 4 hours of fuel left in tanks to go to PEK would dwindle to 25-30% less -
Jet engines are fuel guzzlers at low level -
In doing so, their fuel would have been sufficient for 3 hours low level flying -
And their speed at low level would have dropped as well -

Look for a 777 on an airfield in Malaysia, Sumatra, Burma...
Port Blair, maybe...?
Source:
Retired airline pilot -

This is from a trained 777 pilot.  The certification of the 43,100-ft. altitude is with the Pratt Whitney powered aircraft, unloaded, operating under optimal test conditions.  It is my understanding the Malaysian Airlines Fl 370 had some 240 passengers plus baggage, with full or near-full fuel tanks, and was powered by Rolls Royce engines.

Very little research needed to find the right answer.  You should spend less time stalking people, and more time learning the facts.

Yahoo answers Quill and from a trained pilot as well!!! Well I've seen people claim they are a pilot before when they're not  but give the guy the benefit of the doubt anyway. He's retired but no idea how long and I don't think he has said he flew the B777 series did he?

The MH370 aircraft was a B777 200ER aircraft which is an extended range configuration which is much more powerful than the standard B777 200 series. It's known as the Super Ranger because it has a much longer range and much more powerful engine thrust and also the RR engines are more powerful than the Prat & Whitney. Malaysian Airlines actually hold the world record for the longest flight without landing and that was done in a B777 200ER aircraft.

MH370 wasn't even near full to it's passenger capacity and according to time it was supposed to be in flight it was also well short of it's capable range indicating that it wasn't fully tanked up either.

I just wish he hadn't ended his contribution by suggesting

Look for a 777 on an airfield in Malaysia, Sumatra, Burma...
Port Blair, maybe...?

Anyway, here's the the technical specifications showing the differences between the 200 and the 200ER,,,,it's quite a lot.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.page

And the Data Sheet for the Boeing 777 as well

https://www2.lba.de/data/bb/Flug_o2t/ta_2863_00.pdf

Hope this helps.
Irn

Well, a post requires substantiation. Unfortunately, Irn Bru, when you hear an expert give an opinion on national TV, you don't get a written quote.

On Yahoo, I found a written post that said exactly what the experts on national TV said. His pilot status? He is pretty soundly confirmed by the inter-subjective consensus of all the pilots.

As far as the aircraft is concerned, you were giving the stats from the Boeing website. Of course, they are going to reflect glowingly on Boeing. I thought a truer picture could be had from the man in the field: the pilot. Pilots all uniformly say that while the maximum test ceiling of a 777 is 43,100 (not 45,000-ft.), the reality is that a fully loaded 777 cannot climb up over 28,000 until late in its flight. In addition, the tested aircraft ran on Pratt Witney engines, while MH 370 had Rolls Royce engines.

As far as the load is concerned, most of it is in the weight of the fuel. Passengers do not count for much. They weigh less than their baggage, most of the time. Moreover range is not a function of power, but of fuel. Unfortunately for your analysis, extended range means more fuel, which means a heavier aircraft. A heavier aircraft means a lower cruising altitude. In actual practice, that aircraft would have cruised at around 28,000--35,000-ft., and only at the end of the flight would it be able to rise to about 38,000--40,000-ft.

Best estimates are that for a flight from KL to P'king, it could have carried no less than 12--15 hours of fuel.

Yes, I think the guy gets a little wacky about estimates on where the plane went toward the end. But, pilots are not trained to estimate such things. They are not terror strategists nor are trained commandos. They are just like you and me...asking questions, maybe speculating. If we are entitled...he's entitled. Lol.

But on the technical details, I think the guy is bang on.

Original Quill wrote:Well, a post requires substantiation.  Unfortunately, Irn Bru, when you hear an expert give an opinion on national TV, you don't get a written quote.

On Yahoo, I found a written post that said exactly what the experts on national TV said.  His pilot status?  He is pretty soundly confirmed by the inter-subjective consensus of all the pilots.

As far as the aircraft is concerned, you were giving the stats from the Boeing website.  Of course, they are going to reflect glowingly on Boeing.  I thought a truer picture could be had from the man in the field: the pilot.  Pilots all uniformly say that while the maximum test ceiling of a 777 is 43,100 (not 45,000-ft.), the reality is that a fully loaded 777 cannot climb up over 28,000 until late in its flight.  In addition, the tested aircraft ran on Pratt Witney engines, while MH 370 had Rolls Royce engines.

As far as the load is concerned, most of it is in the weight of the fuel.  Passengers do not count for much.  They weigh less than their baggage, most of the time.  Moreover range is not a function of power, but of fuel.  Unfortunately for your analysis, extended range means more fuel, which means a heavier aircraft.  A heavier aircraft means a lower cruising altitude.  In actual practice, that aircraft would have cruised at around 28,000--35,000-ft., and only at the end of the flight would it be able to rise to about 38,000--40,000-ft.

Best estimates are that for a flight from KL to P'king, it could have carried no less than 12--15 hours of fuel.

Yes, I think the guy gets a little wacky about estimates on where the plane went toward the end.  But, pilots are not trained to estimate such things.  They are not terror strategists nor are trained commandos.  They are just like you and me...asking questions, maybe speculating.  If we are entitled...he's entitled. Lol.

But on the technical details, I think the guy is bang on.

It's true to an extent that posts require substantiation and unfortunately yours don't and neither does the post that you have drawn from Yahoo answers. People make up things about themselves quite a lot including flying aircraft (even military one's) but I accept that in this case he probably has in the distant past. And according to your expert the experts on national TV don't know what they're talking about so where you get the idea that they are saying what he is I just don't know.

And you are not real if you believe that Boeing could get away with overstating the capabilities of it's aircraft and the fact that you said that just shows that you don't have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight.

Mentioning the extended range of the Boeing 777 200ER was an important piece of data because we can draw from that that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up for what is just under a 6 hour flight. Where you get your estimate that it was fueled for a flight time of around 12 - 15 hours of flight time is a mystery because according to the information we have at the moment it ran dry at around 7.5 hours. MH370 was fueled up with 16,120 US gal which is almost exactly what you would expect for a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing which is way below it's fuel capacity indeed it's under half of it. With around 25% being burnt off for the take off and one hour of fuel spent MH370 was already light. And remember as well it was designed to carry a maximum of 440 passengers (with baggage) so it wasn't even near half full with fuel and passenger numbers.

I'm sorry Quill but you are all over the place with the numbers and the the conspiracy theories for what happened to this aircraft but maybe we'll find out some day - before we die.

Don't believe anything said on the news channels .

Have they found anything pertaining to the airplane? I've stopped following this.

harrymuffin wrote:Have they found anything pertaining to the airplane?  I've stopped following this.

Good Question.

I wasn't sure if I'd miss some Breaking News. I'll just stay tuned to this area.

harrymuffin wrote:I wasn't sure if I'd miss some Breaking News.  I'll just stay tuned to this area.

Good plan, stay tued in and that way you never miss a thing  ::D:: 

  This story isn't apparently being carried and reported on anywhere on the mainstream Aussie TV or radio today...

Apparently those corners of the 'Mass Media' aren't too worried about those rumours, as yet..

I shall see what tomorrow's papers bring on (I've only seen one Fairfax paper so far today - some of the others could certainly be carrying this 'non-story'..).  

And no doubt the internet rumour mills will currently be running wild, as always..   

And, AS YET, this newest lot of junk and flotsam hasn't been identified, either ~ all other junk so far captured and examined has not been from any aircraft. Boats, jetsam, shipping containers, seaweed ~ Yes ~ plane wreckage, no...

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Don't believe anything said on the news channels .

  

BUT do feel free to believe everything that's "reported" on the internet !!!

Especially those little gems being brought to you by VOD, Baggs', Tess' and those other well-educated and world-wise truthsayers..

  

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, a post requires substantiation.  Unfortunately, Irn Bru, when you hear an expert give an opinion on national TV, you don't get a written quote.

On Yahoo, I found a written post that said exactly what the experts on national TV said.  His pilot status?  He is pretty soundly confirmed by the inter-subjective consensus of all the pilots.

As far as the aircraft is concerned, you were giving the stats from the Boeing website.  Of course, they are going to reflect glowingly on Boeing.  I thought a truer picture could be had from the man in the field: the pilot.  Pilots all uniformly say that while the maximum test ceiling of a 777 is 43,100 (not 45,000-ft.), the reality is that a fully loaded 777 cannot climb up over 28,000 until late in its flight.  In addition, the tested aircraft ran on Pratt Witney engines, while MH 370 had Rolls Royce engines.

As far as the load is concerned, most of it is in the weight of the fuel.  Passengers do not count for much.  They weigh less than their baggage, most of the time.  Moreover range is not a function of power, but of fuel.  Unfortunately for your analysis, extended range means more fuel, which means a heavier aircraft.  A heavier aircraft means a lower cruising altitude.  In actual practice, that aircraft would have cruised at around 28,000--35,000-ft., and only at the end of the flight would it be able to rise to about 38,000--40,000-ft.

Best estimates are that for a flight from KL to P'king, it could have carried no less than 12--15 hours of fuel.

Yes, I think the guy gets a little wacky about estimates on where the plane went toward the end.  But, pilots are not trained to estimate such things.  They are not terror strategists nor are trained commandos.  They are just like you and me...asking questions, maybe speculating.  If we are entitled...he's entitled. Lol.

But on the technical details, I think the guy is bang on.

It's true to an extent that posts require substantiation and unfortunately yours don't and neither does the post that you have drawn from Yahoo answers. People make up things about themselves quite a lot including flying aircraft (even military one's) but I accept that in this case he probably has in the distant past. And according to your expert the experts on national TV don't know what they're talking about so where you get the idea that they are saying what he is I just don't know.

With all due respect, Irn Bru, your credentials are even less than his.  I have yet to hear that you fly at all, let alone a commercial aircraft.

Now, to be sure people lie on the internet, and people lie on TV.  People also lie from the desks of bureaucracy...and that specifically is what I believe has happened with the Inmarsat speculation that has led to this extensive, perhaps meaningless search of the south Indian Ocean.  That is why I have repeatedly said we have only questions.

Irn Bru wrote:And you are not real if you believe that Boeing could get away with overstating the capabilities of it's aircraft and the fact that you said that just shows that you don't have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight.

Haha, that's a subtle lie, if I ever heard one.  I have alleged that the Boeing publication would not be less than glowing; you have turned that into "overstating the capabilities;" but what you really mean to suggest is that I said that Boeing has audaciously lied.  A little creep and you get to scream: LIAR!!  Honestly, Irn Bru, you are so sophomoric.

What I said was that Boeing would only give the final best test results possible given the small summary it published, and they would be static results.  They would give ceiling results that came out of the best of test conditions, and not normal flying conditions.  

Irn Bru wrote:Mentioning the extended range of the Boeing 777 200ER was an important piece of data because we can draw from that that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up for what is just under a 6 hour flight. Where you get your estimate that it was fueled for a flight time of around 12 - 15 hours of flight time is a mystery because according to the information we have at the moment it ran dry at around 7.5 hours. MH370 was fueled up with 16,120 US gal which is almost exactly what you would expect for a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing which is way below it's fuel capacity indeed it's under half of it. With around 25% being burnt off for the take off and one hour of fuel spent MH370 was already light. And remember as well  it was designed to carry a maximum of 440 passengers (with baggage) so it wasn't even near half full with fuel and passenger numbers.

I'm sorry Quill but you are all over the place with the numbers and the the conspiracy theories for what happened to this aircraft but maybe we'll find out some day - before we die.

A little more relevance creep, Irn Bru?  You need to think more about what you intend to say, and less about how you can misinterpret me.  I have repeatedly said we can only have questions, not conspiracy theories...nor least of all, final answers.

Now I'll help you give your own thoughts some clarity: the question is how high can the Boeing 777 fly.  The question is not, what is the range of the aircraft or the weight of the passengers(?).  It is not about phantom pings from some nondescript satellite technology, or anything else.

First, we have established that you are wrong to begin with.  The 777 does not have a maximum ceiling of 45,000-feet.  It has a published ceiling of 43,100-ft.  

Second, we have established that fuel and range are trade-offs, as altitude extends range and less fuel weight means greater altitude.  But, the only way the Boeing 777 gains in range is to take on more fuel.  There is no new parabolic wing that has been invented since the first copy of the 777.  So it is irrelevant "that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up."  The question isn't proportion of the fuel tank, but weight of actual fuel.  It had the same required amount of fuel as it always had, or needed for that trip.

But keep in mind the real question is, could someone have used altitude to kill the passengers?  The answer: certainly not in the early part of the flight.  The aircraft was too heavy.  As far as later in the flight?  Well, why wait?  Dump the tanks and fly to the moon--haha, highly unlikely you can land, however.  The point is, range or range extension has nothing to do with it.  Without fuel you can't climb at all and with too much fuel the aircraft is too heavy.

In any case, it is impossible for the 777 to climb to 45,000-ft.

You couldn't make it more obvious that you know nothing about aircraft if you tried really:

The 777 does not have a maximum ceiling of 45,000-feet. [b]It has a published ceiling of 43,100-ft.[/b] - your post.


No, it doesn't.   As already been linked more than once from the Boeing site, it has a sustainable CRUISING height of 43,100 ft.   In order to have a CRUISING height, it has to be able to be able to go higher than that in case of trouble.   It doesn't actually have a published maximum ceiling height.

As for Irn not flying, I believe in the post he did to you about people being able to get into the cockpit, he gave you quite a lot of information about the flying he does on a very frequent basis.

Hi sassy,

I think you are a little out of your league on this one. I rather doubt you passed elementary school, let alone areospace engineering.

I read the Boeing site, the same one as you raised. It says nothing about the ceiling of the 777 being 45,000-ft.

Your lack of education in this field leaves you ill-qualified to speak to the difference between cruising altitude and...what??? You don't even say.

Well, so let Irn Bru speak for himself. I don't remember Irn's flying experience. I have flown too, but I am hardly a qualified 777 pilot. There's a lot of difference between a Cessna-180 and a commercial airliner.

You stupid man, as already said, it doesn't give a ceiling at all, in fact, it's very rare for an aircraft to have a published fixed ceiling.     Of course Quill, if you are shown up, you immediate reaction is to be rude, so it's perfectly obvious you are on the back foot and using attack as a form of defence.   Cruising altitude is a height that an aircraft can sustain fully loaded for a time that is only limited by fuel, that doesn't put a strain on its components.

Boeing, very sensibly, don't give a maximum altitude for a reason.   In order to find out a maximum altitude the aircraft would have to be flown to analtitude where it encountered problems, that could cause it to fail.   Not something that any manufacturer does.

I'll wait for Irn Bru. In the meantime, don't cause the closing of this thread, sassy. We are having an interesting discussion.