MH370 Who is Chris Goodfellow and how do we rate his interpretation of events? – Tim Veater
MH370 Who is Chris Goodfellow and how do we rate his interpretation of events? – Tim Veater
“Flight MH370: What are they hiding?
Former pilot Chris Goodfellow believes the loss of MH370 was an accident, but
says Britain’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch is needed to find out what
really happened.”
Former pilot Chris Goodfellow believes the loss of MH370 was an accident, but
says Britain’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch is needed to find out what
really happened.”
By Chris Goodfellow7:01AM BST 16 Jun 2014
“Chris Goodfellow is a retired businessman and former pilot who lives in
Florida. He is a graduate of McGill and Cornell universities and a former
director of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority
Update: Since this article was published, it has been pointed out that flight
MH370’s Boeing 777 was not fitted with the satellite antenna involved in one of
the Airworthiness Directives mentioned. This Directive was therefore not
relevant to flight MH370.”
Florida. He is a graduate of McGill and Cornell universities and a former
director of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority
Update: Since this article was published, it has been pointed out that flight
MH370’s Boeing 777 was not fitted with the satellite antenna involved in one of
the Airworthiness Directives mentioned. This Directive was therefore not
relevant to flight MH370.”
Google interview with Goodfellow at Google Plus Week 3/28/2014 w/ Former Pilot
Chris Goodfellow
Chris Goodfellow
“Streamed live on 28 Mar 2014
Former Canadian pilot Chris Goodfellow makes his first U.S. on camera appearance
since his viral Google+ post about Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 to answer your
questions live. ”
Former Canadian pilot Chris Goodfellow makes his first U.S. on camera appearance
since his viral Google+ post about Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 to answer your
questions live. ”
A debunk of Mr Goodfellow’s earlier theories at
Excerpt: “SIGH I don’t know who Chris Goodfellow is, but just having a “Class 1
License in Multi-engine planes” and 20 years experience does NOT qualify him to
speak with authority on 777 systems and trans-oceanic airline operations. Heck,
when I learned to fly in Canada, I had the same certifications. Mr. Goodfellow
misses the mark on real-world operations, as evidenced by statements he makes in
this article.”
License in Multi-engine planes” and 20 years experience does NOT qualify him to
speak with authority on 777 systems and trans-oceanic airline operations. Heck,
when I learned to fly in Canada, I had the same certifications. Mr. Goodfellow
misses the mark on real-world operations, as evidenced by statements he makes in
this article.”
“While we are talking about altitudes, as I mentioned, the service ceiling of
the 777 is 43,000′. Going above the service ceiling is just downright dangerous.
Why? Because the aircraft is not designed to be able to perform at those
altitudes. Mr. Goodfellow got this one thing right in that doing so would put
the pilots in a situation where going too FAST would result in a “mach buffet”
situation where the airflow over the wing would be going so fast that it would
separate, and thus the overspeed would create a loss of lift. Going too SLOW
would of course mean the wing would stall. Thus the pilots would have to
maintain aircraft speed in such a small range that it is entirely too dangerous.
Many pilots refer to this as “the coffin corner”….the airspeed range is so
precise that safety is sacrificed…thus the reference to the “coffin”. Thus any
pilot with any experience in jet aircraft would NEVER consider taking the
aircraft above the certified flight “envelope”. And if you’
ve got a fire or other emergency on board, why on earth would you do that? As
to WHY it was up there (supposedly), I will not “speculate”.
I could go on and on further. What’s my point? The point is this: There are WAY
TOO MANY “talking head” experts who desperately want to be part of solving this
mystery and, in the process, get their two minutes of fame. The problem is they
just create more confusion, misinformation and wild-haired theories. We all need
to stick to what we know and let the experts, who have all the information, work
to solve the mystery. The hysteria that has ensued since the disappearance of
the jet has gotten to fever pitch. It does nobody any good and, I would say,
does a great deal of harm.” END.
the 777 is 43,000′. Going above the service ceiling is just downright dangerous.
Why? Because the aircraft is not designed to be able to perform at those
altitudes. Mr. Goodfellow got this one thing right in that doing so would put
the pilots in a situation where going too FAST would result in a “mach buffet”
situation where the airflow over the wing would be going so fast that it would
separate, and thus the overspeed would create a loss of lift. Going too SLOW
would of course mean the wing would stall. Thus the pilots would have to
maintain aircraft speed in such a small range that it is entirely too dangerous.
Many pilots refer to this as “the coffin corner”….the airspeed range is so
precise that safety is sacrificed…thus the reference to the “coffin”. Thus any
pilot with any experience in jet aircraft would NEVER consider taking the
aircraft above the certified flight “envelope”. And if you’
ve got a fire or other emergency on board, why on earth would you do that? As
to WHY it was up there (supposedly), I will not “speculate”.
I could go on and on further. What’s my point? The point is this: There are WAY
TOO MANY “talking head” experts who desperately want to be part of solving this
mystery and, in the process, get their two minutes of fame. The problem is they
just create more confusion, misinformation and wild-haired theories. We all need
to stick to what we know and let the experts, who have all the information, work
to solve the mystery. The hysteria that has ensued since the disappearance of
the jet has gotten to fever pitch. It does nobody any good and, I would say,
does a great deal of harm.” END.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.