I realize (or 'realise') that I might be a bit late into this discussion, on the segment/aspect that I singled out, from the OP...but:
No....although YES a Boeing 777 (among other airplanes) is capable of 'Auto-Land', it is a procedure that not only involves the airplane's Auto-Pilot(s), ...three, usually... (only TWO on a B-737)...but specific Human interaction IN the cockpit (what we now refer to as the 'Flight Deck'...for gender neutrality** purposes).
(**)Off-color and OLD misogynistic joke....the 'realm' of pilots was usually (and historically) male-dominated (there were exceptions, of course...but I'm referring to AIRLINE pilots here), but then women began to prove their worthiness as capable pilots too. Some scoffed, and suggested the term "box-office" to replace the term "cockpit". I know, I know.....pilots can be cruel wits.
Getting BACK to my point, in this post: 'Auto-Land' is bandied about by those unfamiliar with the actual procedures that an "Auto-Land" actually entails.
My Two Cents....
Editing on the topic of a suggested 'Auto-land' of MH 370? I will present this video. It depicts an actual B-777, here Air France, conducting a CAT III ('Category III') instrument approach and AutoLand. Please note that the F/O flies....in the beginning. The Captain has the FINAL authority and decision to continue, or to reject (a "Go-Around", or rejected landing). The Captain 'follows' on the controls, and ultimately takes-over after 50 feet. Point I wish to make is....tossing "auto-land" doesn't do justice to the actual skill and procedure and training involved:
They are doing an 'Auto-Land' practice in clear weather....which is often encouraged, as a training thing. At about 2:47 you will hear a male voice in English say "1,000"....this is the GPWS, or "Ground Proximity Warning System" computer. At about 3:35 you hear the GPWS calling out height above terrain. EVERY airline has a different protocol, this happens to be Air Frances' choice...so be it....
This is REAL life....not Hollywood, nor CT-World stuff. BTW? IF you speak French, then you will understand some of the communications. OF COURSE the "rule" in aviation in Air Traffic Control communication is that English is the "primary" language....(try telling that to the French!! LOL). (In German airspace? They all speak English...in Latin America? Mostly Spanish....eh, this is why we have to pay attention, every time!!!).
Wrong.
Who is hiding this evidence? Is it on the plane.External Quote:
One HUGE problem with this whole Kazak thing, its at the very limit of MH370's range, so to get there is would have had to go in a straight line. This means the plane would have over flown the air space of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan before reaching Kazakhstan. There is also a chance it would have gone near or over Nepal, China, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Even if the plane did have the range to take a more round about route, Kazakhstan is a land locked nation, it would have had to cross the air spaces of one or more other nations to get there.
Curious, so where did it initially head for? Antarctica? Tierra del fuego, the long way?
Its been quite a while since I worked on ground based Nav Aids but that what I thought would be needed.
AT THIS POINT? The whole "mess" is now owned by American Airlines.....so the "Cactus" call-sign is no more....once a merger in the airline "BIZ" is complete, the acquired companies eventually are "re-trained" to the basic protocols and SOPs, or "Standard Operating Procedures" per the FAA-imposed guidelines and Standards. AFTER that, then all flights change to the "new" ATC radio protocols....because ALL of the pilots have been "re-trained" per the over-all airline's standards.
I'm new to this forum, so forgive my missteps as I get to know the intricacies, etc...
The behavior of the plane from 1:07 to 2:37 indicates human intervention in the flight plan. Suggests, implies, makes possible...quibble over semantics. It is possible, based on the evidence we know of, that the plane was hijacked.
Not so, based on the evidence. But, that post was definitely funny!It's also possible that I took it!
(that specific mention, alone, may qualify the "NoParty explanation" as having more evidence than the "Hijackers did it, explanation")
Well, humor often involves a bit of exaggeration...but not much is needed in this situation.
Just before the anniversary of its disappearance, the BBC News site published a piece on Flight MH370: Could it have been suicide?, addressing both questions:
External Quote:
Not according to this...
So in this instance (and without wanting to cause opsec issues) would there be any way for flight crew to raise an alarm to ATC? Are there any auxiliary comms outside of the flight deck for a scenario where hijackers lock flight crew out?
It seems a complicated (and spectacularly selfish) way to suicide though. Of course that completely overlooks the fact that a suicidal person is not in a good frame of mind in the first place.
The only incident I know of where anything like that happened was the case of Pinnacle 3701. Where the crew on a ferry flight (no passengers or cargo) decided to see if they could get their Bombardier CRJ-200 to its service ceiling of 41,000ft with catastrophic results. The aircrew received a Darwin Award for that stunt.
Can you explain that a bit more please? I'm not really following the logic.
