Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is something that happened during a 777 test flight.
What is your point? The article talks about ETOPS....claims it isn't safe. And then the article talks about rapid decompression. ETOPs has proven it's self safe as can be. If we ever find out what happened here I don't think the answer will be, "well if that plane had two more engines on it this just wouldn't have happened" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
Regardless, two engines or sixteen engines...a rapid decompression isn't going to be cured by 16 jet engines. No amount of engines will pressurize a cabin with wide open outflow valves or a hole in the cabin.
Both of those articles say that he didn't necessarily try to make a call, that his phone just could have been turned back on. I guess it's something...but maybe it's nothing.
It tells me (a) somebody was alive at that time, (b) it was probably the co-pilot, (c) he was not able to use the plane's radio. If you assume the radio was not disabled due to fire, then you can deduce that (d) he probably was not in the cockpit. If the radio was simply turned off, why not use it? If he couldn't because someone else in the cockpit wouldn't allow him to use it, then that same someone would not allow him to use his cell phone either (or turn it on). So he was not in the cockpit.
Why do you think that because his cell phone was turned on at that time (or that someone tried to make a call) that he couldn't use the radio on the plane? How did you come to that conclusion? You think that he was going to try to call for help but couldn't? I can't imagine why someone would turn on their phone in flight, but maybe people do. Maybe they try to send texts and stuff. I don't know.
Here's the problem: If plane can not be found and/or determined precisely what happened if found (i.e. no fire, no struggle evidence, black boxes not conclusive, etc) it would be the worst outcome possible. For the media and to let airlines operate a 'best guess' scenario would be published.
Now somebody (i.e. a ground crew of the hijacker) with very proprietary information about this plane's disappearance could set demands to any airline or government by threatening to let another plane disappear in the same mysterious way. Good pilots, nobody suspicious on board, no radicals on the passenger manifest, modern and maintained plane--just gone. The efforts to fly MH370 undetected were therefore making sense. It took a lot of time and luck to find out what we know so far.
A 'best guess' scenario for the disappearance would not be sufficient because a) Who would get on a plane with a quiet mind? b) Airline insurances would balk c) What do we protect/screen/search for at the airports?
Why do you think that because his cell phone was turned on at that time (or that someone tried to make a call) that he couldn't use the radio on the plane? How did you come to that conclusion? You think that he was going to try to call for help but couldn't? I can't imagine why someone would turn on their phone in flight, but maybe people do. Maybe they try to send texts and stuff. I don't know.
Yes, I am assuming that the co-pilot would not turn on his cell phone (or try to use it) unless there was some compelling reason other than an urge to text his GF. He is after all bound by the same in-flight rules as all the passengers.
A cell phone getting signal and making a call or sending a text at 30000 feet is a feat.
The plane was flying very low at that point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.