There continues to be mystery shrouding the disappearance of MAS flight MH370 and with it, loads of theories.
There is also continuing puzzlement over how the ACARS health monitoring system could have been turned off. We reported last week that simply flipping a switch could do so while other suggest it is far more complicated.
We once more turned to a Boeing 777 pilot/instructor to revisit this. His reply:
It’s all well and good to put this together, and to suggest the plane landed at some field–but then what? How do you hide a Boeing 777 from satellites photography? If the airplane is to be refueled for future use, how do you service it (i.e., get enough fuel to a remote, undisclosed location to refuel it)? If you landed on a short strip, you likely need a lot of skill to take off again (see the Boeing Dreamlifter that landed a the wrong airport in Kansas), which suggests this would be beyond a “mere” hijacker.
We continue to believe the airplane crashed, or was crashed, into the ocean.
Andy Shankland, senior vice president of leasing markets for Airbus, and Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing for Boeing, were next up at the ISTAT annual meeting in San Diego today.
The following is a synopsis and paraphrasing of their presentations and free-wheeling discussion.
CIT Aerospace, one of the Top Tier lessors in the business, takes a look at the future options of the Airbus A330.
In a short paper released concurrent with the start of the AGM of ISTAT, the International Society of Transport Aircraft Traders, in San Diego today, CIT’s Steve Mason outlines what he sees as the options facing Airbus to improve sales.
The four page PDF may be found here.
We have production rates of 14 Boeing 787s a month (vs 16 in the CIT analysis) and 10 Boeing 777Xs a month (based on Boeing’s own information) vs eight in the CIT analysis, but otherwise the CIT analysis is very similar to the issues we’ve written about here previously, so we won’t repeat them. We presented yesterday to the ISTAT Appraisers Continuing Education meeting about the production gap facing Airbus, Boeing and Embraer between their current airplanes and future programs, a topic we’ve also discussed here previously. CIT and we concur that Airbus has a major dilemma with the A330 going forward; we believe Airbus should proceed with the A330neo, which should extend the life of the airplane by 10-15 years. Absent this, we believe Airbus will be at a major production rate disadvantage in the important 210-400 seat twin aisle sector.
We’ve been provided the latest statement from the Malaysian authorities, from which news reports have been written. We find the information in the statement to be more than a little interesting, so we’re reprinting it verbatim.
Official statement:
We don’t have anything to add today to the self-explanatory news in the last 24 hours that electronic signals tracked Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 and this is increasingly being viewed as a criminal act.
This graphic is worth reproducing here, based on a Reuters article and published on Twitter, depicting the route of the airplane.
The Boeing 777 is equipped with five radios and two transponders, making it next to impossible for failures to be due to electrical or other mechanical failures, a Boeing 777 captain and training instructor tells us.
The ACARS system, which communicates with the ground, is run off one of three VHF radios; the radio would have to be turned off (or failed). There are two HF (High Frequency) radios as well.
The two transponders, which identify the airplane to Air Traffic Control, are not operational simultaneously. If one failed, the pilot has to turn the other on as back-up, says George Nolly, a former airline pilot and Boeing 777/787 instructor.
With authorities widening the search area for Malaysian Airlines MH370 to the southwest of the last known position on the intended flight track, and with the possibility that the flight was hijacked or commanded by a rogue pilot keeping the airplane under control, we wondered just how far the aircraft could go–and how big the potential search area could become.
We started with the fuel required for Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, a 2,700 mile trip, and added a 500mi reserve. Then we subtracted the distance to the last known point of contact on the intended flight path and the same amount for the reported U-turn back to KUL. It’s been reported (as noted in our previous post) that military radar tracked the plane to the west coast of Malaysia.
With this new calculation, we estimated the distance remaining for the Boeing 777 and here’s what we got, plotting on the Great Circle Mapper:
Searchers have their work cut out for them.
Day 4 brings an expanded search area in the case of the missing flight MH370. This Wall Street Journal illustration shows the expanded areas.
That these areas are behind the intended flight path of the missing Boeing 777 is intriguing. It’s previously been reported that radar returns indicated the airplane “turned back” toward Malaysia before all electronic contact ceased.
The report that radar indicated the flight was “turning around” was ambiguous. We’ve not seen where along the flight path this turn supposedly took place, nor except for this sole report have we seen how much of a “turn” was undertaken. Aviation Herald reports the flight was headed on a course of 024 and “turned” to 333; this isn’t what we would call “turning around.”