The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    MH370 Goodfellow's Hypothesis

    By NCD on Wed, 03/19/2014 - 4:42pm |

    Not seen anyone with this on DAG. Veteran US pilot believes the plane experienced a catastrophic in flight fire/smoke and/or decompression, the pilots steered immediately for the closest runway in Malaysia, and no one survived to land the plane. It continued on as a 'ghost plane' to points unknown. Goodfellow frankly makes more sense than most other theories from what little facts we know 'for sure' about the flight.

    Goodfellow's original post here.

    A CNN advisor rebuttal here.

    Goodfellow's rebuttal to the CNN guy here.

    In his rebuttal Goodfellow makes the point:

    ...This morning I posted a new piece that calls for Rolls Royce to come clean with its data. I think they have the keys to the puzzle so to speak. After all it took two days for the information to filter out they had been collecting the databursts for a further six hours. (this was after I penned my original piece). The key to whether this was a "ghost plane" for 6 hours or a hijack is in their data. Again simple. If the data shows the engine parameters did not change - constant rpm - and normal cruise settings throughout the six hours then the aircraft for all intents and purposes was a ghost flight with no human input. If on the other hand as this writer asserts the plane maneuvered and changed direction and particularly if we were led to believe it performed a the piggy back operation to avoid radar as it moved up the Bay of Bengal there would be many power setting changes in the data. Rolls Royce needs to clarify this asap...

     

     

    Comments

    I thought it might be a ghost flight when I first heard about it.  It happened in a area where people on the ground were not paying any attention to their radar.  

    Thanks for the link. 


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 03/19/2014 - 6:43pm

    One glaring problem from Mr Goodfellow's posting . . .

    Overall, Mr Goodfellow's scenario is very well thought out. But the following really stood out to me relative to the report of the plane ascending to 45,000 ft. altitude.

    On Mar 17, 2014 down in the comments Goodfellow posted:

    But let's accept for a minute he might have ascended to 45,000 in a last ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. It is an acceptable scenario in my opinion.

     

    No veteran commercial passenger airline pilot worth their salt would ever purposefully ascend from 39,000 ft. to above the 777-200's maximum 43,100 ft. serviceable ceiling (altitude) for any reason whatsoever. Not even in the event to quell a fire.

    It is common knowledge and well established in aviation circles that a pilot has about 18 minutes to get on the ground in the event of a fire.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Thu, 03/20/2014 - 11:35pm

    Yeah, the climb to 45K is not likely done by a pilot trying to control a fire. Are we sure it did go to 45K? As I said what we know 'for sure' about this flight is very limited, and seems closely guarded by the authorities.

    I don't know how much I trust the precise details of the Malaysian radar track.  The RR ping donuts might be open to some mathematical or atmospheric doubt as to what they mean on a map (the engine ping function has nothing to do with geographic location fixing).

    All we know 'for sure' is the plane turned back, didn't communicate a mayday, and flew on and on and on to no one knows where. Goodfellow has a point that a very odd but real and catastrophic accident might explain it, a ghost plane, better than say terrorism or pilot suicide.


    by NCD on Fri, 03/21/2014 - 1:02am

    My main point was about Mr Goodfellow . . .

    I'm not speculating as to whether or not the plane climbed to the reported 45,000 ft. and well beyond it's certified flight envelope.  My point is about Mr Goodfellow's speculation that if it did, in his words, "It is an acceptable scenario..." in his opinion.

    Even in his own scenario he has stated:

    "Fire in an aircraft demands one thing - you get the machine on the ground as soon as possible."

    It's reported that Mr. Goodfellow is a veteran pilot with 20 years experience as a Canadian Class-1 instrumented-rated pilot for multi-engine planes.

    With his reported experience, in relationship to us neophytes he should know better.

    Other than that, with a few exceptions, I have no problem with his scenario.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 03/21/2014 - 3:35pm

    Here's a little background on me . . .

    In the late 60s/early 70s I was ship's company with VS-41 stationed out of NAS North Island in San Diego. We were a training squadron for carrier-based anti-submarine warfare aircrews and aircraft. On missions we worked hand-in-hand with the VP squadrons that were operating P-3 Orions. In addition to the the ASW operations, we also flew search and rescue (SAR) missions when called upon.

    Here's the aircraft (S-Fs and S-2Gs) we operated (later replaced by the S-3 Viking): Grumman S-2 Tracker

    And here's the P-3 Orion (that are currently being deployed to on station SAR out of Australia): Lockheed P-3 Orion

    I really hope they find this aircraft.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 03/21/2014 - 3:43pm

    I did Navy time in the 80's as a Doc. Did temp duty on a carrier out of Norfolk, the first day out the CO invited some of us up to his control area on the island. To the great amusement of the line guys present, CO suggested we Docs stand outside the enclosed space to watch the first aircraft come in. We thought it a great idea.

    When an F-14 came in and did the first touch and go that morning, with after burners, we were almost blown off the outer bridge area by the hot grit jet exhaust and the noise was absolutely deafening. They flew A 3's and the dish radar aircraft too. The crew numbered about 5000.


    by NCD on Fri, 03/21/2014 - 6:08pm

    See discussion at link for latest info, including lithium batteries in cargo.

    CNN reports the airline CEO said this misinformation on the batteries:

    But Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya told reporters the batteries were routine cargo.

    "They are not declared dangerous goods," he said, adding that they were "some small batteries, not big batteries."

    'Small' lithium batteries are potentially dangerous, they are  'lithium metal' as opposed to 'lithium ion' rechargeable. Contrary to the airline CEO, transport in cargo of the 'small batteries' are banned in US passenger aircraft, and regulated for all air transport, IATA pdf.


    by NCD on Sat, 03/22/2014 - 4:48pm

    Yes... I've read that...

     

    Also read this comment in the news thread.

    All options are on the table. Currently we are left chasing smoke until the wreckage is found and hopefully the black boxes.

    And sorry I haven't been back here. We took a quick trip to Lancaster here in SoCal to watch the US Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team at Fox Field. Very impressive and a nice day in the desert.

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Sun, 03/23/2014 - 12:21pm