Missing Flight MH370 777-200

[agent]

Farbin, have you been posting on Gawker?

Okay I'm officially obsessed with this whole thing. I tried not to care but after yesterday's introduction of possible terrorism I just can't get enough. I will jump on any thread that indulges in semi informed wild speculation.

[BraveUlysses]

:rofl:

[Farbin Kaiber]

In before BraveUlysses starts mocking me.

[mulletman]

For takeoff, I can't imagine it being any shorter than 4000 feet. Maybe just below 5000. Boeing built the 757 at Renton, and that's only about 5000 feet. However, the '57 is quite a bit smaller, and also probably the most over-powered airliner ever. You'd have to be pretty light to pull something like that off.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Since we are lucky to have some folks with wings under their belts, we can ask some questions... Opinions on this? (I think we might not have any triple guys here, but, I think we have some guys with experience on the bigger end of these things, so some input should be out there.)

What is the minimum length of runway a 777 would need for takeoff? presumably fairly well loaded with fuel to reach a distant target.

Ignore normal flap settings, accelerate stop distances, power settings, and any other safety margins.

Think about practicing these high flap radar power VMU takeoffs in your sim at home...

I bet you could do it in way less than 5,000 feet.

Just like it will land and stop in breathtakingly short distances. I bet a guy could get real good at doing VREF -10 landings if he had a sim at home...

Just sayin'

Also, on this land&takeoff theory, a 777 holds what, ~45,000gal of fuel? So, an 18 wheeler tanker holds about 6,000gal, so, they could pull a complete refuel, IF they had six tanker rigs on the desert highway, and, to likely not be seen, needed a rig to pump into that pumps all six trucks into the tanks at once, otherwise, they would be sitting on some ground for 6+ hours I'd guess. So, IF they had six tankers, a pump truck, and four tourist busses, the passengers could still be alive.

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-malaysia-airlines-engineer-idUSBREA2G05Y20140317

Now they are looking into the flight engineer that was onboard. The thing to me is, a lot of tail chasing is going on, and it seems like this is being handled like the US handled Katrina in the south, or the way Sandy went down up north. Screwed up, a week out, trying to figure out how to resolve the mess, and the mistakes made after the event too.

[M-technik-3]

If you land a jet that heavy on a highway, you'll shred the pavement, the tires, and probably end up collapsing at least part of the landing gear. Runway pavement is multiple feet thicker than highway pavement.

You'd probably get it down, but it's not going anywhere else once you do.

Depends on the weight. Most would break up but in some parts of the world Highways double as alternates for runways.


Used to see them in South Korea all the time. Gates close airplane lands, gates open traffic resumes.


Too many unknowns on this thing right now.

[mulletman]

If you land a jet that heavy on a highway, you'll shred the pavement, the tires, and probably end up collapsing at least part of the landing gear. Runway pavement is multiple feet thicker than highway pavement.

You'd probably get it down, but it's not going anywhere else once you do.

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_Desert_Highway

There is a nice, deserted, 445+km strip of highway in the middle of nowhere here, who needs a landing strip? With the proximity to The Stans, they could have landed, disembarked the passengers, and had a fuel truck or two on the highway to refuel. Not to mention who knows, maybe they jettisoned the cargo and passengers over the water... Fuct up thought, but...


We know how China is, maybe they got penetrated and don't want to admit how weak their powers actually are?

[gkurey]

I know that in my airplane, my options are trans 1, trans 2, code, and ALT/STBY. Even on STBY, you'll still pop up. You'd have to completely power down the avionics system to kill everything.... and that just ain't going to happen.

Again, things might be different based on different equipment. I'm not sure what you fly, or how your TCAS might interpret data.

Very true...hadn't stopped to consider what selections there are for you guys as every plane I've flown, I have the ability to turn off the transponder alone, i.e. beyond a standby state. FWIW, I fly C-2s...our nav/comm/tcas is basically off the shelf civilian with a few exceptions to integrate it with older stuff we still use (military is my only aviation background besides a cessna here and there).

[Farbin Kaiber]

Charles Whitmore

Or Widmore for that matter.

[mulletman]

It has been my experience that TCAS only works with powered transponders. You can absolutely turn it off and drop off the system for other users. I have trouble with helos all the time where I fly at because they don't squawk a lot of the time. Obviously approach can see em on the scope bu they can't tell you much else. Also have run into VFR traffic on a few occasions that didn't pop up on TCAS because they were'nt using a transponder. I thought that if you didn't have mode C then you get the diamond with no other info...like ships can create TCAS with no altitude info for example.

I think you're right. Obviously something like a Champ with no electrical system won't show up at all. However, the transponders on a transport-category jet are always powered, although they might not be set to report altitude. I know that in my airplane, my options are trans 1, trans 2, code, and ALT/STBY. Even on STBY, you'll still pop up. You'd have to completely power down the avionics system to kill everything.... and that just ain't going to happen.

Again, things might be different based on different equipment. I'm not sure what you fly, or how your TCAS might interpret data.

[gkurey]

He's incorrect about how TCAS displays traffic with a transponder that's been selected to "standby" or "off." It will still show up on the display as one of those little diamond symbols, there just won't be an associated relative altitude number. A "primary target" only, is what ATC would call this. Depending on the TCAS system, this would issue a traffic alert to the airplane. I've gotten traffic alerts from airplanes that were 10,000 feet below me. You wouldn't get a Resolution Advisory as that requires operating Mode-S, but your screen defaulting to minimum range and turning yellow would get your attention.

It has been my experience that TCAS only works with powered transponders. You can absolutely turn it off and drop off the system for other users. I have trouble with helos all the time where I fly at because they don't squawk a lot of the time. Obviously approach can see em on the scope bu they can't tell you much else. Also have run into VFR traffic on a few occasions that didn't pop up on TCAS because they were'nt using a transponder. I thought that if you didn't have mode C then you get the diamond with no other info...like ships can create TCAS with no altitude info for example.

[delatlanta1281]

Charles Whitmore

[mulletman]

He's incorrect about how TCAS displays traffic with a transponder that's been selected to "standby" or "off." It will still show up on the display as one of those little diamond symbols, there just won't be an associated relative altitude number. A "primary target" only, is what ATC would call this. Depending on the TCAS system, this would issue a traffic alert to the airplane. I've gotten traffic alerts from airplanes that were 10,000 feet below me. You wouldn't get a Resolution Advisory as that requires operating Mode-S, but your screen defaulting to minimum range and turning yellow would get your attention.

The other problem with this theory is that you'd have one hell of a time avoiding radar coverage once you broke out from behind the aircraft you're following. You'd have to pick some place rather remote, and as such you'd be up high in the flight levels, where radar contact is pretty much everywhere. Again, it's hard to explain a sudden VFR flight up close to 40,000 feet.

If the airplane did indeed climb to FL450 like has been said, it burned a fair quantity of fuel doing it. In my airplane, fuel burn roughly doubles when compared to cruise flight if you're performing a climb close to the service ceiling of the airplane.


I wish I knew where to find a winds aloft forecast for the time of the flight. That would help significantly with range in any given direction.