Bluey

If it's safer than driving down the road then why is it that of the 30 or so people that I've known over the years of flying, 7 of them have been killed in the last 3 years. The statistics don't in any way justify this claim. Think of 30 people you know who drive cars, how many are dead? I bet the answer is most likely zero. The risks are clearly much greater than any form of road transport. I'd also like to add that most of the recent fatalities involved safe pilots not Cowboys. My sincere condolences go out to Ray's family and all of his friends. This is another very sad day. Bluey.

Lets not assume pilot error in this case. The pilot did seek and get support when transitioning from his previous wing and the current one. Also, he flew it regularly and had built up at least 20 hrs and probably significantly more on the arrow wing in short time before the tragedy. He also, regularly flew with much more experienced pilots who also fly arrow wings. The incident in this case has two possible causes: 1. Pilot incapacitation 2. Structural failure Pilot error is unlikely given eyewitness accounts of the event. That is all I am willing to say at this time. A thorough investigation needs to occur to help identify the likely cause. Whether this is even possible is yet to be seen. Let's hope for all our sakes a definite cause can be found.

33 years for about 100 fatalities makes about 3 fatalities/year not 33. That's still 3 too many.

My sincere condolences to the families of the victims. Our thoughts are with you during this very difficult time.

The safest way is to insert the nozzle into the tank and be sure that the nozzle is in contact with the wall of the tank just like refueling your car. This way if a spark accurs inside the tank nothing happens. The fuel air mixture in the tank will prevent combustion unless the tank is empty or nearly so. As for drilling holes and inserting conducting elements, I am skeptical as to their effectiveness. This is because fuel would have to come into direct contact with such elements to discharge. Fuel not in contact is going to remain charged and flowing fuel will acquire charge. Bluey.

A static build up will only occur if the atmospheric conditions allow it. That is, humidity is low, generally below 50%. Plastic cannot be grounded. The fuel funnels when used in combination with a drum and spout is a problem. Don't forget the fuel itself will build up a charge as it swirls in the funnel during refueling. Don't assume it's always the plastic. A good practice would be to spray water to the outside of your plastic drum before refueling. At least this way you'll elliminate one possible source. Alternatively, don't refill when the air is that dry. You're asking for trouble. I had a fire about a year ago during NSW bushfires. I was lucky! Bluey

Spoke to the gyro instructor the other day who is pretty certain turbulence had nothing to do with the accident. Apparently the pilot flew from somewhere up on the escarpment to begin with. He also stated that the conditions on the day would have been fine for a gyro. I can confirm that I've seen gyros operating out of YWOL with westerlies gusting to more than 25kts on the ground.

I think we need to entertain the possibility that this plane has been essentially stolen and that it may have landed elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that the pilots were not involved in this incident. Given the systematic way systems were switched off it was probably done by experienced professionals. It all unfolded moments after the last friendly communication between mh370 and Malaysian controllers when they entered into no mans land between Malaysian and Vietnamese airspace. The pilots would've by far the best equipped individuals on that flight to know when to orchestrate the whole exercise. Seems too well planned for terrorists working on their own.

You may well be right.

This seems probable. Not sure about its direction and final destination but slow decompression is still the most likely explanation at this point.

The engines running for 4 more hours is being disputed by Boeing as fact! This claim has not been disproved. From what I can tell the Malaysians don't know what's going on and probably shouldn't be in charge of the search.

On a good day JORN can see Singapore. On a good day.

The primary return relies on being painted by ground radar. The range of that would be in the order of 100nm for Malaysia. Beyond that the aircraft would be invisible unless military radar was operating in the area. It would have appeared on other radar north of Malaysia if it had continued flying in that direction.

If the plane had continued on auto pilot it would most likely have popped up on primary radar somewhere. As far as anyone knows right now it didn't crash. Or at least if it did crash it's probably nowhere near where they are looking. It may never be found if it is in water.

Malaysians are denying the plane flew for a total of 5 hours. Many bizarre claims have now appeared in the media. Debris seen by Chinese satellites turned out to be boats tied together. No sign of an aircraft. Does anyone know what is going on?