From: kozelsm@comcast.net   
      
   On Friday, March 21, 2014 12:32:52 AM UTC-4, pos...@nosuch_INVALID.gov wrote:   
   > On 03/20/2014 09:14 PM, Scott M. Kozel wrote:   
   >    
   > > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:16:12 AM UTC-4,   
   >    
   > > nobod...@_INVALID_.org wrote:   
   >    
   > >> Obviously my sincerest sympathies to kin & family, including that   
   >    
   > >> of the   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> pilots!   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> Chris Goodfellow's idea of a smoke/fire situation is the best I've   
   >    
   > >> seen sofar.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> The airplane had possibly become unflyable even though they may   
   >    
   > >> have supressed the fire.   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >> The progressive shedding of an (among other places) e&e fire due   
   >    
   > >> to early red-eye overloads would jive with the losses preceding   
   >    
   > >> the final com failure and they may not have been aware of anything   
   >    
   > >> up to that very point. IF the climb to 450 did in fact happen and   
   >    
   > >> was not false data it may have been a desperate improvised attempt   
   >    
   > >> to get on top of a far more severe situation than anything they had   
   >    
   > >> been prepared for. It may also have been an uncomanded malfunction,   
   >    
   > >> their first sign of grave trouble. The descent to 230 should also   
   >    
   > >> seem familiar to many pilots, there are too many pieces that just   
   >    
   > >> plain fit. They may have gotten to Langkawi but were by then either   
   >    
   > >> incapacitated or unable to do much else.   
   >    
   > >   
   >    
   > > SwissAir Flight 111 was not a DC-10, it was an MD-11.  The AirCanada   
   >    
   > > DC9 didn't land at Columbus Ohio, it landed at the Cincinnati   
   >    
   > > airport.  Not to pick nits, but those names have spaces (Swiss   
   >    
   > > International Air Lines, and Air Canada are the full names).  "If   
   >    
   > > they pulled the busses the plane indeed would go silent." ==> that   
   >    
   > > statement has been refuted on an airline pilots forum, that the   
   >    
   > > comms most likely would have continued to operate; also, there was a   
   >    
   > > 6,500 foot strip much closer than the alternate that was listed above   
   >    
   > > (and Flight 111 proved how critical it is to land ASAP when there is   
   >    
   > > a fire)... You have to wonder who this Goodfellow guy is given his   
   >    
   > > more obvious errors.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > I didn't even read the whole piece just cited him because he's the only    
   >    
   > one that I have seen raise the prospect of an air turn because of a    
   >    
   > smoke/fire incident. I had thought of it already but more along the    
   >    
   > lines of an e&e bay melting away before they even knew something was    
   >    
   > wrong.  It's all theory at this point but I see few other scenarios    
   >    
   > outside of maybe some sort of collision that lead to radio silence and a    
   >    
   > 6hr ride followed by an inevitable ditching.   
      
   At this point there is NO actual evidence, and the various news articles are   
   only speculating about it. Much of the putative 'evidence' is contradictory   
   and most are proved unsubstantiated. I can think of at least 5 workable   
   alternatives based on what is    
   known, and at least 2 of them are accidental. Given the paucity and changing   
   nature of the "information" we have regarding this missing plane, I believe   
   that there are so many possible "plausible" theories that discussing them   
   amounts to little more than    
   mental masturbation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)