Bruce Robertson's MH370 Theory

Hi all,

First post on this site. I am fascinated by the MH370 disaster.

Just read an interesting theory published by Bruce Robertson (a commercial pilot) on his website:

www.mh370site.com

His claim is that the pilots and everybody on board was poisoned by the fumes from a battery fire in the cargo hold. In his theory he claims one of the pilots shut down the LHS engine to isolate electrics & the fire - explaining the shutdown of ACARS and the SATCOM initially. Explains the SATCOM rebooting by the autopilot taking over and powering up the left hand side bus (SATCOM logon request at 18:22).

Claims that the aircraft was held in a large radius left hand turn by one of the pilots slumped on his control column and the aircraft climbed & descended in a phugoid motion, eventually crashing due west of Exmouth (near the area where the supposed "pings" were heard).


Can anyone debunk this?

 

My understanding is there was a step in the shut down of flight deck comms and navigation that required the hand and mind of a person in control & not unconscious. (But i maybe confused with Germanwings) Not one mayday, not even one click on comms??, Its a good read and shows how satcom pings were sent and a possible gentle splash down that wont leave a huge debris field is possible.

I'll await till many MB qualified readers assist.

oh and welcome to MB

 

tap tap check 1,2 123 er hello anybody is this thing working ?

 

I'm here mate

Robertson seems to explain the electronics being disabled by the pilot shutting down the LHS engine because he believed the cargo fire could affect it.

I guess we need someone who has expertise in B777's to either confirm or debunk if a fire in the cargo hold could adversely affect LHS engine operation.

 

I think maybe the reason there's not been much response is that it seems like a sincere attempt to explain what may have happened, on that basis a "debunk" seems a little harsh.

I did read through it, and did a bit of "Googling" on how the fire suppression system works and the procedures involved, since the author doesn't really mention it:-

Boeing - Cargo-Compartment Smoke Detection & Fire Suppression - this states that the 777 series cargo compartments are "Class C", and that the fire suppression system must function for between 60-180 minutes (depending upon range, so likely the top end for MH370 as it was a multiple engine long-haul flight).

Boeing - Fire Protection: Cargo Compartments - this gives more detail on how the fire detection, suppression and smoke penetration controls work.

Given the above it appears that once the fire was detected, and assuming the pilot was capable of responding to it, the systems and procedures should have suppressed the fire and prevented further fumes from entering the occupied areas.

A lot of the theory seems to hinge on the pilot taking off his oxygen mask (and not applying a mask to his disabled colleague) which, presuming that was a failure in protocol explained by his befuddled state, in turn hinges on the fire detection system being unable to detect the fire before the cockpit and cabin were filled with CO. The answers to whether either/both of those scenarios are likely are beyond my "Google smarts"

Ray Von

 

The report says there were 221kg of Lithium batteries all up in the cargo hold. Perhaps it would be prudent for the investigative team to conduct a mockup of the cargo hold on MH370, set one of the Lithium batteries on fire and see how the fire develops (with halon fire suppression introduced).

 

Probably worth having a look around, similar tests may already have been run, airlines have been concerned about LI-ON batteries for some time.

Halon does seem to be recommended for LI-ON battery fires, though it'd certainly be interesting to know whether that's limited to preventing it from spreading to other materials or if it can stop or limit thermal runaway.

Ray Von

 

wreckage found on Reunion Island

with this news http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh370-s...hes-up-on-reunion-island-20150729-gindj0.html

he may have got this part right?? wait for analysis of and we will see

 

Looks hopeful. We will know shortly.
As for the OP... Speculation and poor speculation at that.

 

Did you see Boeing's announcement from a week or two ago? Halon didn't do much for Li-ion fires.

 

The Li-ion scenario is a just device to tie the theory together. I wish it could be good enough to even call "poor speculation". I'm just as comfortable with an oxygen-based start to this whole disaster.

The rest of the evidence does support the remainder of the scenario, though. I especially want to pin down the aircraft movement through the Malacca Strait as this leads us to the crash site.

 

Giday Bruce & welcome could you post a link to the Boeings claim

 

Bruce, I don't have any 777 time but have close to 10000 on the 767 and 747.

Lets take your scenario one claim at a time.

Incorrect analysis: Standard procedure on most airliners on departure is to climb at 250 IAS to 10,000 ft. In places like the US it is mandatory. The restriction is coded into the FMC. All that was happening at 10000 feet was that the aircraft began to accelerate to climb speed by lowering the nose and hence the climb rate. The aircraft was flying towards the Cameron Highlands, which makes this procedure good airmanship as well.

Speculation. Also I cannot find any reference to carbon monoxide being a byproduct of a lithium-ion battery fire. Please give us one if you have it.

http://publikationer.extweb.sp.se/ViewDocument.aspx?RapportId=15011

1.Inaccurate speculation: There is no means to determine the location of a fire at "the left wing root". Whilst the EICAS message says "Fire CARGO FWD", it is actually a smoke detection. There are no fire detectors in the cargo area. The drill is to actuate the fire suppressant bottles which are designed to suppress a fire for a sufficient time to get to an airport. The fumes from any fire do not come into the cabin or flight deck. The systems are described here:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q2/pdfs/AERO_2011_Q2.pdf

2. Inaccurate claim: The Cargo fire checklist is not a memory item.

Nor does it:

Here is the actual checklist:



The LDG ALT Selector item is a pressurization setting, not a command to descend.

3. Procedure being made up here:

There is no command to shut down an engine to isolate a cargo fire.

Bruce, I have no wish to humiliate you. But I have only scratched the surface of your scenario and find it severely wanting. I will leave it up to if you want me to go on but it is clear to me you have little understanding of how airliners work.

 

Addendum: This reference gives CO as a byproduct of a thermal runaway.

http://www.rechargebatteries.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Li-ion-safety-July-9-2013-Recharge-.pdf

The design of the Cargo compartment ventilation system however does not allow fumes from such an event to reach the flight deck. If it somehow did, you also haven't explained why only one pilot was affected,

 

TWCobra great job

 

Besides the arguments already given against the "fire" scenario from Bruce Robertson, one may ask :

1) Why did the pilots not issue a "mayday" call at any time ? and

2) Why did the plane make a 180 after the transponder was switched off, and then put the pedal to the metal flying 529 knots back over the Malaysian peninsula,

if they had a fire aboard ?

http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf
page 3.

 

http://www.pprune.org/9073620-post444.html

so this in my mind puts splash down in the search area,,, but did or could the fuselage float or semi submersed drift in currents for some time eg wings stay on large empty fuel buoyant tanks.



Subsequent analysis confirmed the 7th handshake could be used to help determine the most probable flight path.

http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf

 

derwoodii,
As far as I know, the search efforts DID include the 7th arc:
http://atsb.gov.au/media/5243942/ae...tion_of_underwater_search_areas_18aug2014.pdf

in the determination of which areas to search :



note that the difference between the 6th and the 7th handshake is only some 135 km, which is small compared to the entire area being searched.

The recent find of that flaperon on Reunion Island suggest (if anything) that MH370 likely downed at the north end of that search area, not much affected by a choice between the 6th or the 7th Inmarsat handshake.

 

Any chance this old data checked possible find is within the predicted footprint

http://www.smh.com.au/world/debris-...irlines-mh370-us-experts-20151021-gkez4p.html

 

I just saw this today and this seems to be the latest thread in this topic. The claims here are not exactly the fire but a similar malfunction. Since I don't know much on this subject technically I wonder what the experts would say?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...as-crippled-by-sudden-electrical-failure.html

 

The Satcom is powered from the Left AC bus. If that was working then the "massive electrical failure" scenario described by this author is invalid.

 

After reading the report in-depth, my recommendation is to avoid "The Daily Beast" and Mr Clive Irving with any reference to this incident.

The report deals only with possibilities around the end of the flight. There is no mention of how the aircraft got to that point save the explanation of the Satcom tracking data.

The Left AC bus was operating for all of the flight till the engines flamed out. With that bus operating you can fly the aircraft normally. You have full instrumentation on the Captains side and available autopilots. You also have full communications.

I don't think Mr Irving understood the report at all.

 

TWC I'm curious and you would likely know that, is it possible to turn off comms from E/E bay in a way that left AC bus stays operative?!

 

Yes. Comms can be turned off either by finding and pulling the applicable circuit breakers (most, if not all of which are on the overhead panel in the cockpit) or going into the E/E and physically disconnecting the radio boxes from their power source and/or finding any CB's in there as well.

The access door to the E/E is outside the flight deck on the B777. So it depends what scenario you are looking at. You can make the applicable Flight deck CB's out in these diagrams.

 

Thanks TWCobra, but how do you know that ?

 

Because the Satcom was sending out handshake pings every hour. Therefore the Satcom was powered, therefore the bus was operating.

 

Yes, that is true for the time AFTER 18:25, an hour after MH370 went dark. But at 18:25, SatCom logs on with Inmarsat, which means that at that time, EITHER somebody physically flipped the circuit breakers in the E/E bay back on (and then decides not to use the system), OR the left AC bus was powered down prior to 18:25.

The latter also suggests that the cockpit door lock was in the 'unlocked' position prior to 18:25...