Page 16 of 165 FirstFirst ... 6891011121314151617181920212223242666116 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 4103
  1. #376
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    19-06-2023 @ 09:10 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    5,734



    One might assume that the wing(tip)(?) destroyed during the MH370 airframe's 2012 taxiing accident was repaired properly. However (see image) it did take one almighty clout when it struck the China Eastern acft's tail a few years back. That wing actually lost quite a few jagged feet of span. It was a classic case of a dominant force striking an immoveable object - and the failure was well inboard. A very pedestrian and mundane accident you might say. The fore-aft (i.e. chord-wise) propagation of the collision forces would have tended to concentrate, via the main- and sub-spar(s), at the wing-root - but the wing-root wouldn't necessarily be the weak focal point of any future turbulence (or metal fatigue) induced failure. I'll explain why below.

    The wing out as far as the engine pylon mounting is quite beefy and rigid, because it has to contend with the inboard fuel tanks and the engine's weight and thrust - as well as minimizing the flexure caused by its inertia (you've seen how much the wing-mounted engines appear to move inflight relative to the fuselage, right?). From the engine's pylon-mount out to the wing-tip is less rigid, i.e. it's designed to allow a high aspect ratio wing to soak up turbulence-induced flexing. The mid-span of this pylon-to-tip distance was where the 777's RH wing was torn off. Not just damaged or dented, but TORN OFF. Did Boeing replace the entire RH wing? No it didn't. That starboard wing was "repaired". You'd have to wonder how the assessment of an "adequate" repair was done, given the extensive damage to a large section of outboard (i.e. missing) wing. Wingtip taxiing accidents tend to be dismissively "ground rash". This one may have been just a bit more than that. Wing repairs are several orders of magnitude more consequential than fuselage or tail repairs. "G", I wonder why? - you might ask. Obviously the considerations go far beyond the cosmetics of incidence, conformity and airflow-friendly re-skinning. Justifiably, the main concern would've been for ongoing operational structural integrity. This often leads to a very beefy repair scheme. No engineer would endorse or certify any repair less sturdy and reliable than afforded by the original structure..... and also because the question of "how much is enough?" is a tough one when considering a major wing repair scheme and the implications of undetected additional hidden damage. Replacement is often the better option. But that might not be what the insurance company is prepared to pay for, especially since there's a considerable history of simply replacing the wing-tip or its endplate winglet fairing after a bit of "ground rash". But this one was a little more than just a wing-tip. Try and convince an insurance assessor of that, in a circumstance that's so very familiar to insurance assessors and their bean-counters.

    Catastrophic failure of a wing repair inflight is almost incredibly incomprehensible. But then again, the China Airlines 747's tail-scrape repair led to a high altitude instantaneous break-up at max cabin pressure differential a few years later - and consider as well the Boeing repair on the JAL 747 rear bulkhead that failed and led to a fatal loss of control? These events (and there have been similar others) should be convincing enough for an argument that a "sufficient" structural repair may not stand the test of time and the unforgiving operational environment. Consider also that a fuselage repair and a wing repair is chalk and cheese from a structural fatigue point of view. The wing-span is always "soaking up" an incredible continual imposition of very variable flight-loads, whilst the fuselage is merely taking a pressurization "hit" just twice per flight. So what are the chances and likelihood of the wing failing in the vicinity of the repair-patch? What could cause that and what would be the subsequent chain of events?

    Consider that a wing is designed to have a natural harmonic and that this is achieved by a laterally harmonious gradation of each wing's structure from its wing-root to its wing-tip. Each side's original wing will have an almost identical natural harmonic (i.e. if you loaded up each wing-tip on the ground and simultaneously released those loads, each wing-tip's diminishing movements around the mean would be graphed as identical - as each wing's oscillation faded away cyclically to its static position). Would this be the case with a repaired wing? Not really, as the extra internal structure introduced by the repair's ironmongery would significantly change that sides' wing-flexure characteristics. Would Boeing engineers have compensated for this by ballasting (or beefing up?) the other wing? Not at all likely methinks.
    Would a flight-crew detect any such dissimilar lateral flexure characteristic in the aircraft's gust responses? You have to take into account the "active controls" used in modern airliners for gust alleviation. Flight Control Computers compensate for turbulence-induced wing movements by minuscule aileron responses. It's designed to soak up and take the "bounce" out of turbulence and promote a more comfortable ride. If the wing on the collision side was slowly failing (i.e. structural fatigue damage propagating along micro-cracks in its repair doublers?), would the "active flight control" system disguise and (to a certain extent) alleviate or mitigate this? Possibly. Alternatively, could it exacerbate the cracking of a failing spar? Don't know .... but someone might. My suspicion is that "active flight controls" would promote crack growth in a weakened structure that was spider-webbing towards eventual failure. It would achieve a repetitive concentration of stress in its ongoing opposition to natural flexing.

    If the taxiing collision occurred just two years ago, the MH370 aircraft may not have undergone a major servicing since its wing repair. Such servicings are predicated upon total flight-time and certainly that interval's not ever varied just because a major structural repair has been carried out. So anything going on inside that wing may have gone unnoticed in the long interim. It's unlikely that Boeing would have mandated any "how's it going?" non-routine inspection to see whether that repair was holding up OK - or to see whether there had been any further fatigue damage or developments (perhaps further inboard) that was beginning to manifest itself. As the manufacturer, Boeing would've been inclined to demonstrate "sight unseen" confidence in its repair work. Arrogant or not, the FAA wouldn't intervene. It's a Boeing supplicant.
    When would such a culminating inflight failure be most likely? Possibly while the aircraft was still at its heaviest and on encountering clear air turbulence at or near top of climb (or whilst accelerating to cruise Mach). Would that be its most vulnerable point? If that repair gave way, (as most inadequate or improper wing repairs eventually do), what would be the sequence of events? Remember that up until the point of failure, the gust alleviation system would have been disguising (and even moderating?) any signs of imminent failure. In my opinion any such failure in turbulence would be in a DFDR identifiable two parts - firstly the progressive failure (over a few seconds) of primary structure (wing spars and internal bracing buckling as flight loads quickly transfer to inferior sub-structure) - and then the rapid deterioration of the scenario as the secondary structure failed under the increased loadings (the secondary structure being the wing-skin -as the skin does assume much of the inflight loading). As the wing folded, the aircraft would begin to roll to the right quite rapidly (at circa 180 - (increasing to about) 360 degrees per second - around its fore-aft axis). The pilots would be out of the equation at this point - as the aircraft spiralled rapidly down. However there are reports of a garbled transmission. This is likely to have been during the first phase of failure as the pilots became aware that something was happening. However they are unlikely to have discerned that the wing was slowly folding.... or rapidly losing its structural integrity.

    What about ACARS reporting of these sudden developments? I'm wondering just what it could (or would) have reported to the company by way of exceedances or untoward abnormalities (??). Engines and systems would still be running normally, but the g forces in the spiral would've been quite high. In any case, would the ACARS report transmission succeed in a rapidly rolling and spiralling scenario? Or must its antenna be more or less static and upright in order to retain a synchronous lock with its associated satellite? Lastly, would the DFDR record of prior flights retain any record of differentially dissimilar flight control activity that may have indicated any deteriorating structural integrity in the RH wing? Probably not, as the compensating activity would've been via mutually synchronous aileron inputs - and not just the RH or LH spoilers. What would be the effect of landing arrivals impact be upon any propagating failure? Likely it would not tend to add to the deterioration of any cracking. It would be acting in the opposite sense.

    If the pilots were disabled by the g forces and shock of a rapid roll into a spiral descent, the engines may have remained at high power and thus the aircraft's spiral would have tightened. The impact would have been at high speed under high positive g by an intact fuselage - and the damage would've been smithereening..... i.e. all fragments would likely have lost flotational dimensions - at least for anything visibly significant to aerial searchers.

    Feel free to dismantle or disparage or to relate an alternative version of such an explanation. It is starting to look like a case of the simplest explanation being the most likely one. Falsetto passports don't necessarily promote accidents. Actual accidents always come complete with herrings rouge to some degree. Sometimes crashes just stem from the unexpected consequences of false economies. I'm reasonably confident that this will be the lesson learnt. They're always hard lessons and often they are quite revelational. Wing loadings are up. Think about that and respect that fact. It's an attritional process, post-repair degradation. Even when it's "just ground-rash", failure is never an option. How many other simplistic ground-rash repairs are out there awaiting their turn to insult Boeing or Airbus expertise? Think about it. Now repair the despair.

    Accidents happen. But sometimes/oft-times, they are just a result

  2. #377
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    12,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Ramjet
    .a total electrical failure although unlikely is possible,
    That would require a lot of failures...both engines, apu and RAT to all fail and is highly unlikely.

    Wing falling off is more likely but the plane should have been found by now if this was the case.

    Mind you, I've experienced Malaysian incompetence first hand and they are quite capable of blatant lies if it means saving face.

  3. #378
    Member
    AVVICI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton
    Whole thing is just BIZARRE!!
    Beyond bizarre. Nations desperately scouring and nothing. Simply disappeared.

  4. #379
    Tax Consultant
    Thormaturge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    9,890
    ^^^

    Excellent cut and paste from the forum highlighted by Taxexile. Some very informed comments on that forum..

    Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost - Page 90 - PPRuNe Forums

  5. #380
    Member
    Roger Ramjet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    07-10-2022 @ 03:15 PM
    Location
    high in the sky!
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluke View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if the crew felt KUL was their best, safest option and on top of that (and for the life of me can't fathom why nobody posting here didn't say it earlier) there is a Lost Comms approach procedure for KUL which this crew would have known. If they were down to basic night VFR flying then how best to get to KUL and comply with the procedure... find the west coast, turn south and fly until you pass KL. They could line up for a straight in similar to a KIKAL2 for RWY14L or give ATC a chance to guess what they are doing (if they hadn't already) and head down towards the lights of Malacca to come back for RWY32R approximating a LAPIR2 arrival. Makes logical sense if they were comms crippled so why people think it's stupid for the authorities to be searching the West Coast is a bit rich. If the guys were trying to get back to KUL then it's sad they might have been within reach of KUL and dropped it in the drink for whatever reason.
    Flukes logic here is sound......and the most basic flight training has been overlooked......Assuming they had a sudden massive electrical failure....
    Rule 1...fly the aircraft manually.
    Rule 2...identify the problem and try to rectify.
    Rule 3...Head for the best safe landing site.
    Rule 4...After selecting heading Fly Quadrantal

    For those non pilots Worldwide all Aircraft flying fly what is called "Quadrantal"
    In this case this was an instrument rated aircraft and was on course in the Eastern Quadrant...(that is was flying a course to the East of a North South line!)so was initially flying at 35,000ft an "odd Thousand" quadrantal flight level! Assuming they turned to the West to return towards the Malaysian coast, as reported, they would very likely decide to climb or descend to the corrrect "Quadrantal flight level" in this case an "even Thousand level" which is exactly what happened! to avoid traffic conflict with oncoming even thousand level aircraft.
    This fact leads me to believe there was an electrical failure over all the other scenarios, and the aircraft most probably did attempt a return to Malaysia and familiar territory.
    "Looking for a cold beer to put out the chilli!"

  6. #381
    Thailand Expat
    ossierob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    03-03-2017 @ 06:58 PM
    Posts
    1,465
    Yesterday the Melbourne Sun was reporting that around 100 waiting relatives had called their relatives on the missing flights and the calls were ringing and gained connection only to be cut off by some means. They apparently were demanding information they believed was being withheld. the paper then reported that Malasian Airlines then rang the phones of the crew and they too rang till they connected then were cut off. It went on to say that some Chinese relatives rang passenger relatives and when they connected they were shown to be 'online' via some Chinese app program that they shared. That makes it more bizarre to me....can anyone throw any light onto why the phones would still connect....obviously they are not submerged I would think.
    Just a Member number

  7. #382
    Thailand Expat
    ossierob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    03-03-2017 @ 06:58 PM
    Posts
    1,465
    Did it again....didnt finish a sentence...meant to read
    '
    They were demanding information from Malasian Airlines they believed was being withheld"

  8. #383
    Philippine Expat
    Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    18,204
    That 'ringing cellphones' story has been on the news here in the Philippines, but I just wrote it off to the normal lunacy.

  9. #384
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    19-06-2023 @ 09:10 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    5,734
    When you telehone a cell phone , it takes time to connect , during the time it takes to connect, the calling phone is seen to be ringing, but the called phone isnt actually ringing .
    After being unable to locate the called phone number, the call cuts out .

  10. #385
    Thailand Expat
    ossierob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    03-03-2017 @ 06:58 PM
    Posts
    1,465
    ok Davis ....it may be a rant but it was just another associated story titled ' Phantom phone calls'. Dont know how much credence to give the story

  11. #386
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    19-06-2023 @ 09:10 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    5,734
    When you visit some sites and log on, you are seen as to being online and this only changes when you log out .
    People simply may not have logged out of the websites when they last visited

  12. #387
    Thailand Expat
    taxexile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    19,335
    i doubt if it is the passengers handset that is wringing, it will be the central base for roaming calls sending a ringing tone to the caller until the connection can be made and the call put through, when the connection is unable to be made then the ringing tone will stop.

  13. #388
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,226
    Fluke is coming up with some good ideas

  14. #389
    Thailand Expat
    Troy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Location
    In the EU
    Posts
    12,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Ramjet
    Flukes logic here is sound......and the most basic flight training has been overlooked......Assuming they had a sudden massive electrical failure.... Rule 1...fly the aircraft manually.
    mmm...the 777 is fly by wire........how you gonna fly it with no electrics?

  15. #390
    Member
    AVVICI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    252
    Smartphones are logged in permanently into Skype, e-mail, Facebook and other social networking sites. Most never log out and receive notifications.

  16. #391
    Philippine Expat
    Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    18,204
    Quote Originally Posted by ossierob View Post
    ok Davis ....it may be a rant but it was just another associated story titled ' Phantom phone calls'. Dont know how much credence to give the story
    My 'lunacy' comment was directed towards the Filipino social media, which devours stories like this........watch, soon some Filipino will dial the plane and claim a cross came up on his/her phone screen.

  17. #392
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    19-06-2023 @ 09:10 PM
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    5,734
    It is also possible that if the plane crashed on land , then the phones survived the crash and are just ringing normally .

  18. #393
    Member
    AVVICI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    252
    The problem with the hijacking theory is that the passengers didn't get in contact with anyone.

    In this day and age, even if there were armed gunman, I would be shocked that no one got out a text, an e-mail, a call, a tweet, or anything. The fact that there was nothing sent out either means it was something so slow and gradual that no one noticed anything was amiss, or so sudden that there wasn't anytime to react.

    Bizarre. After 9/11 aren't planes equipped with a hijack button?

  19. #394
    Thailand Expat
    ossierob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    03-03-2017 @ 06:58 PM
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ossierob View Post
    ok Davis ....it may be a rant but it was just another associated story titled ' Phantom phone calls'. Dont know how much credence to give the story
    My 'lunacy' comment was directed towards the Filipino social media, which devours stories like this........watch, soon some Filipino will dial the plane and claim a cross came up on his/her phone screen.
    haha yes ....I understand and wasnt offended

  20. #395
    Member
    AVVICI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    252
    Another theory is pilot suicide. At some point we have to trust that people in a position of responsibility will act responsibly. If we try to micro manage the entire system based on events that are statistically extreme outliers we end up crippling the system.

    This is life, not a video game, there can't always be a button to fix things.

  21. #396
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Ramjet
    Flukes logic here is sound......and the most basic flight training has been overlooked......Assuming they had a sudden massive electrical failure.... Rule 1...fly the aircraft manually.
    mmm...the 777 is fly by wire........how you gonna fly it with no electrics?

    There are multiple separate redundant power supplies and multiple redundant control computers, something almost unheard of would have to happen for all to fail. But assuming they did, then you are dead stick. If in level flight you follow your natural glidepath to impact. If maneuvering, you maintain whatever aspect you had at failure.

  22. #397
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Ramjet
    Flukes logic here is sound......and the most basic flight training has been overlooked......Assuming they had a sudden massive electrical failure.... Rule 1...fly the aircraft manually.
    mmm...the 777 is fly by wire........how you gonna fly it with no electrics?

    There are multiple separate redundant power supplies and multiple redundant control computers, something almost unheard of would have to happen for all to fail. But assuming they did, then you are dead stick. If in level flight you follow your natural glidepath to impact. If maneuvering, you maintain whatever aspect you had at failure.
    But RAT deployment and the batteries will restore some of the hydraulics and comms., so it still makes no sense.

    Deliberate CFIT or catastrophic failure would still be my favourites barring something more sinister.

  23. #398
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Necron99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Troy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Ramjet
    Flukes logic here is sound......and the most basic flight training has been overlooked......Assuming they had a sudden massive electrical failure.... Rule 1...fly the aircraft manually.
    mmm...the 777 is fly by wire........how you gonna fly it with no electrics?

    There are multiple separate redundant power supplies and multiple redundant control computers, something almost unheard of would have to happen for all to fail. But assuming they did, then you are dead stick. If in level flight you follow your natural glidepath to impact. If maneuvering, you maintain whatever aspect you had at failure.
    But RAT deployment and the batteries will restore some of the hydraulics and comms., so it still makes no sense.

    Deliberate CFIT or catastrophic failure would still be my favourites barring something more sinister.


    Wasn't there a crash where the pilots for some reason went to their masks and the o2 supply failed? Everyone just went to sleep and the plane flew into the ground?

  24. #399
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    24-02-2024 @ 04:47 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    32,939
    Quote Originally Posted by xanax View Post
    Could have been going for the towers in KL? if a terrorist job almost certainly an Islamic attack
    FFS you morons, Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country.
    It wasn't anything to do with terrorists attacking Malaysiia.
    If terrorists were involved (which they weren't) it would have been an attack on China.

  25. #400
    Member
    AVVICI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    252
    Agreed. Who would benefit from it has not been covered.

Page 16 of 165 FirstFirst ... 6891011121314151617181920212223242666116 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •