# Malaysian Ghost Plane



## nbp (Mar 18, 2014)

(Can't believe we don't have a thread yet.) 

First of all, my condolences to the families and friends of those missing. The waiting must be agonizing. :candle: 

11 days missing and still no good answers. 

Where is it?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 18, 2014)

There's a thread about it downstairs, but there's no reason to not have one here. As I pointed out there, it's not an act of a terrorist organization because no one's claimed credit and they wouldn't have had the expertise to get the plane so far without being noticed. So it's someone/people who know more about the plane than terrorism, which greatly reduces their motive for doing anything with the passengers.

My guess is it was crew members who had arranged to defect, who landed the plane in some remote area (the 777 only needs 3000 feet of level runway, less if you don't plan on flying it again,) and had transportation waiting; "The truck is ours, the plane is yours, good luck.."


----------



## ledconfused (Mar 18, 2014)

So you think the passengers are still alive somewhere or not?

I think it ran out of fuel and crashed.


----------



## orbital (Mar 18, 2014)

+














__________________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## dc38 (Mar 18, 2014)

Ive said it once, i'll say it again. satellite hijacking test.


----------



## nbp (Mar 18, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> There's a thread about it downstairs, but there's no reason to not have one here. As I pointed out there, it's not an act of a terrorist organization because no one's claimed credit and they wouldn't have had the expertise to get the plane so far without being noticed. So it's someone/people who know more about the plane than terrorism, which greatly reduces their motive for doing anything with the passengers.
> 
> My guess is it was crew members who had arranged to defect, who landed the plane in some remote area (the 777 only needs 3000 feet of level runway, less if you don't plan on flying it again,) and had transportation waiting; "The truck is ours, the plane is yours, good luck.."



This would *seem* to be the most "logical" conclusion to me too (if any of it can be considered logical). There were several steps taken to disable communication and tracking, so a sudden catastrophe leading to a crash does not appear reasonable. After this long, any terrorist organization would have likely have taken credit for the crash or delivered a ransom note of some kind if the passengers were still alive. Crew hijacking seems the most sensible explanation given the meager evidence. Even then, what is the motive? That I cannot figure out.


----------



## RIX TUX (Mar 18, 2014)

I think it went down in the middle of the ocean, because just think: if they got close enough to the land somewhere to get a cell signal someone on the plane would have texted someone. And if there were two terrorist they couldnt watch everyone all the time. And if they did take everybodys phone away from them there are many travelers (me too) that have two phones. Somebody would have got a message out if they ever got close to cell signal.


----------



## callmaster (Mar 18, 2014)

Defection? They could have just gone to whichever country they wanted and defected accordingly. There was no need to steal a plane. This isn't North Korea, lol.


----------



## ledconfused (Mar 18, 2014)

RIX TUX said:


> I think it went down in the middle of the ocean, because just think: if they got close enough to the land somewhere to get a cell signal someone on the plane would have texted someone. And if there were two terrorist they couldnt watch everyone all the time. And if they did take everybodys phone away from them there are many travelers (me too) that have two phones. Somebody would have got a message out if they ever got close to cell signal.



I've thought about that also. That would be a lot of phones to confiscate. Surely someone would still have one. Or is it possible they have a signal jammer or something similar preventing the cell phones from picking up?


----------



## RIX TUX (Mar 18, 2014)

could be^but there are many types with different frequencies - I know nothing about jammers, but if you send an emai and it doesn't go through I think it does resend it when you find a signal???.........


----------



## nbp (Mar 18, 2014)

I don't think phones work especially well at cruising altitudes. It wouldn't really shock me if no one could get a call out. And if they didn't know something was going on (such as if it was not an obvious hijacking or catastrophic mechanical failure) they wouldn't have thought to call anyone anyways. 

What about the Thai radar evidence they released today that indicates that after losing communication, they believe the plane took a sharp left turn back over Malaysia and toward the Indian Ocean? I think sudden mechanical failure is basically out of the running at this point. Someone took over the plane... but WHO? And WHY?


----------



## whiteoakjoe (Mar 18, 2014)

If that plane is not in Iran I will eat my hat!


----------



## Z-Tab (Mar 18, 2014)

The best theory I've read is that there was a fire in the cockpit, which explains why they shut down all the systems, and the pilot turned toward a nearby airport.

This article explains it better than I can: 
http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3


----------



## KuanR (Mar 18, 2014)

Z-Tab said:


> The best theory I've read is that there was a fire in the cockpit, which explains why they shut down all the systems, and the pilot turned toward a nearby airport.
> 
> This article explains it better than I can:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3



As a pilot myself, this article makes the most sense compared to all the crazy theories that have been circling all media outlets


----------



## Lebkuecher (Mar 18, 2014)

KuanR said:


> As a pilot myself, this article makes the most sense compared to all the crazy theories that have been circling all media outlets



My understanding is the plane turned before the co-pilot radioed "good night" as they left Malaysian air space. I don’t see how the events in this article can be consistent with the crew battling a tire fire. 

A Boeing 777 filled with explosives could do some damage and I find it interesting that Israel is now preparing for a possible attack by the missing airliner. I also find it very odd that there were no military ships in the area that could track an aircraft of that size. It just seems that you could pull the radar logs for the date from any number of ships and see what happened to the aircraft.


----------



## LightJunk (Mar 18, 2014)

Z-Tab said:


> The best theory I've read is that there was a fire in the cockpit, which explains why they shut down all the systems, and the pilot turned toward a nearby airport.
> 
> This article explains it better than I can:
> http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3



This is the most logical explanation.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 19, 2014)

Agreed. I think they have been looking at all the wrong places.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 19, 2014)

The turn was programmed 12 minutes before the "good night" transmission.


----------



## mcnair55 (Mar 19, 2014)

After listening to various theories on many radio and tv stations the one which is very plausible is the plane is landed on the ground hidden for an attack on the Petronas twin towers at a later date.

Part of quote

Is it possible that MH370 was a 9/11-type plot, in which the target was the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur? Until recently, they were the tallest buildings in the world. And even now, they remain a spectacular centerpiece to Kuala Lumpur’s skyline. You can see why terrorists would find them a tantalizing target.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 19, 2014)

Malaysia has been a moderate and neutral country. For most times minding their own business. 
I do not see a reason anyone wanting to hit Malaysian soil. Plus it is an Islamic country.


----------



## 59ride (Mar 19, 2014)

deep in the indian ocean i think


----------



## orbital (Mar 19, 2014)

+

1: You simply don't build that involved of a flight simulator, configure & tune your software ......then delete those files.

2: Also, the 12 minutes _before_ the "Good Night" is key.



*Fully intentional act.*


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 19, 2014)

Let's for a minute assume it is intentional. The plane's original flight is supposed to be 6 hours. Let's say it has got fuel for 7 hours to be airborne. 

Can someone calculate what sort of range can this plane cover. Taking into consideration that it has been alleged that it escaped radar by flying low. 

I am not sure if one is mad to do a air turn back cutting across 4 lines of very busy airway to head west without atc clearance. 

I just took a screen capture and you can see how busy the air way is.


----------



## cland72 (Mar 19, 2014)

I saw a friend who is an Army pilot post that the range could've been either 2,000 or 3,000 nautical miles given their aircraft type and fuel supply. I saw an article that said the search area was approx the size of the US. I believe it was a "quiet" hijacking as well. Just not sure of the motive.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 19, 2014)

*Airport '77* - they're all hanging out in the plane under water. Probably the worst movie ever made and embarrassed to say I have seen it...all the way through. But seriously, is it possible to make a relatively gentle crash landing in the ocean keeping debris to a minimum, and sink, making it impossible to find?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 19, 2014)

BenChiew said:


> Can someone calculate what sort of range can this plane cover.



When I mentioned "land in a remote area" in my scenario above, that could include a Russian ice field..



callmaster said:


> Defection? They could have just gone to whichever country they wanted and defected accordingly. There was no need to steal a plane. This isn't North Korea, lol.



Right, I should be more specific; not a political defection but an identity defection, an agreement among key members of the crew to work together to disappear from their lives, debts, home situations, and restart somewhere new and far away. Using the plane makes sense in this context, since it's the only way you could get a great distance across many nations without being questioned and for free. But the passengers are the catch, since if this were the outcome, you would put the plane down somewhere where they could be found in ~48 hours. Perhaps our defectors overestimated the survivability of the passengers and set down in a location that was a little too remote.

*Update:* The Malaysian transport minister has conformed that he has "received radar data" but has declined to reveal its contents. That's not what you would do in the event of an accident, that's what you would do as a government official who may be in some trouble..


----------



## ghuns (Mar 19, 2014)

LightJunk said:


> This is the most logical explanation.



Well, except for aliens.:duh2: Did all you flashlightaholics think you could just keep shinin those high powered lights into space all willy-nilly without somebody noticing?


----------



## cland72 (Mar 19, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> *Update:* The Malaysian transport minister has conformed that he has "received radar data" but has declined to reveal its contents. That's not what you would do in the event of an accident, that's what you would do as a government official who may be in some trouble..



Interesting... That tells me they are either waiting for next of kin to be notified of the accident/fatalities, or they are withholding it for tactical/intelligence reasons (i.e., not wanting to tip off the hijackers that officials may know where they are).


----------



## orbital (Mar 19, 2014)

+

_Let's blame it on Putin_

{that reads "We are together" from a couple days ago}


----------



## mcnair55 (Mar 19, 2014)

They know more than they are telling us.Some big countries are very quiet on it including the triangle of doom three.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 19, 2014)

Okay, so here's our pilot, 53 year old Zaharie Shah:






The guy loves cooking with his family and is really into his PC flight sim rig; this pic is his last run on the simulator with his instructor before some planned upgrades:






BIG upgrades, the guy is all about the hardware:











So plenty of hardware knowledge, but that's not really out of the ordinary for a veteran pilot.

Some Facebook post highlights of the political variety:











Some empathy for the Boston event, nothing out of the ordinary there. The second post deals with Malaysian politics, arguing for democracy, but aside from the "alien predator" comment, nothing that would raise a red flag.

The mystery deepens..


----------



## MBentz (Mar 19, 2014)

That is a nice simulator. I was big into FSX for quite some time and can honestly say that setup is not out of the ordinary. In fact, there are enthusiasts who have more elaborate rigs than this pilot. Go to Avsim.com (most likely you'll need to register to see the forums) to learn more.

Seems like an ordinary man to me. This is definitely one of the most bizarre events in quite some time.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Mar 19, 2014)

*How is it even an option to switch a commercial jet's GPS locators off?*

When I first started hearing about this 777 disappearing somewhere in the Pacific region, I kept hearing how the jet's GPS location equipment was turned off at some point by someone aboard the plane. It wasnt just that GPS locator either, as there was some other tracking equipment that was switched off. It took about .001 seconds for the ridiculousness of that statement to register in my brain. This is a roughly 240 million dollar jet that carries hundreds of human passengers, and its relatively new. This isnt old technology here. Also, remember that commercial jet related situation that occurred on 9/11/01 in New York, in Washington DC and in a field in Pa? 

How is it even possible that the designers of a 240 million dollar commercial jet airliner would build into the systems of this plane the option for someone to disable the transponders and tracking equipment? This must be 2014's best example of a complete lack of common sense on the part of whoever made it possible for these systems to be disabled! It is of paramount importance to be able to locate a large jet airliner, and aside from radar, which apparently isnt omnipresent in the Pacific region, this is the primary system used to find these planes. I hope there is some sort of class action lawsuit to make sure that the option for anyone onboard these planes to switch these systems off is removed. I cannot think of any logical reason that people on any airliner would need to disable these systems. I did hear one 'expert' say that there are times that it may be helpful to turn them off, but if you weight the positives and negatives I think there should be a change to stop the disabling of these locators. 

This is actually more stupid than the decision to locate the triply redundant hydraulic lines on DC-9's and DC-10's side by side and parallel to each other, so that in case of damage to one hydraulic line, there was a very good chance that even the 2 backup lines would also be damaged at the same time, leaving the jets without hydraulics, which led to major crashes with hundreds dead.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 19, 2014)

It's worse than that; you can "spoof" the transponder, so that your plane identifies itself as some other plane on an air traffic controller's screen. It's a good thing pilots are nice..


----------



## dc38 (Mar 19, 2014)

I. Think. That. It. was. a. satellite. hijacking. test. performed. by. some. branch. of. government. with. full. cooperation. of. the. pilots. After all, it is usually necessary to have SOME form of inside connection at the site of the data breach, right? Imagine hundreds of remote controlled...utilities, ready for 'deployment' at any given time. Very very dangerous.


----------



## Lebkuecher (Mar 19, 2014)

HighlanderNorth said:


> *How is it even an option to switch a commercial jet's GPS locators off?*
> How is it even possible that the designers of a 240 million dollar commercial jet airliner would build into the systems of this plane the option for someone to disable the transponders and tracking equipment? This must be 2014's best example of a complete lack of common sense on the part of whoever made it possible for these systems to be disabled



The military of many nations uses the civilian air fleets during national crises and time of war, you wouldn’t want the enemy to able to track and shoot down planes full of troops flying into war zones.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 19, 2014)

- The reason no one used a cell phone is because cell phones only work on a plane that is flying under 10,000 and under 155 mph, that's why there were only two momentary cell phone calls on 9/11. Cell towers only send/receive from modestly above the horizon and can only "handshake" phones that aren't moving too quickly relative to their position. There is still a remote possibility of nothing more than a handshake from a passing phone, however - the cell tower would then log into its metadata the time/date that the phone was in its coverage area. But different regions have different rules and practices on storing metadata, some delete it after only a few days.

- The pilot and co-pilot did not ask to fly together, so it would have been a random assignment for each to work with the other that day.

- 370's engines reported cruising at 45,000 feet for some time; this is the service ceiling of the 777 and no sane pilot would attempt it, as controls would become very vague and there would be a very real possibility of a stall. Cabin pressure would have been essentially unaffected, however the pilot does have the option of depressurizing the cabin (and the crew can actually disable the oxygen masks that fall from above the seats), which would result in certain death for everyone behind the cockpit door in short order.

- After cruising at the service ceiling, the engines then reported a sudden plummet in altitude to 23,000 feet in the space of a minute, however it is in question if this is physically possible for the 777 at all. If not, it means the engines were sending ersatz data most likely resulting from the software having been deliberately turned off and then rebooted. So if the data is right, it's suspect. If it's wrong, it's suspect.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 19, 2014)

An Australian satellite has spotted two objects in the South Indian Ocean that could be related to the plane. A US P-8 is en route, eta 20 mins as of this post.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 19, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> An Australian satellite has spotted two objects in the South Indian Ocean that could be related to the plane. A US P-8 is en route, eta 20 mins as of this post.



Just saw that too.


----------



## nbp (Mar 19, 2014)

Watching this development closely. Looks like there will be a presser in Sydney right about now. We'll see if anything comes of this search.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 19, 2014)

A local retired airline pilot commented that Capt Zaharie is a very good pilot. Both technical and attitude. Back then Zaharie was his first officer for sometime.


----------



## nbp (Mar 19, 2014)

As an aside, do you have any unique perspectives being in Malaysia during all this Ben? What is the feeling of those you chat with?


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 20, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> There's a thread about it downstairs, but there's no reason to not have one here. As I pointed out there, it's not an act of a terrorist organization because no one's claimed credit and they wouldn't have had the expertise to get the plane so far without being noticed. So it's someone/people who know more about the plane than terrorism, which greatly reduces their motive for doing anything with the passengers.
> 
> My guess is it was crew members who had arranged to defect, who landed the plane in some remote area (the 777 only needs 3000 feet of level runway, less if you don't plan on flying it again,) and had transportation waiting; "The truck is ours, the plane is yours, good luck.."



There actually was some **** poor terrorist group based in India that did initially take credit for it. But the authorities in that nation consider the group to be so utterly pathetic that they're ignoring the claim.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 20, 2014)

Yesterday's search found a lot of fog, a freighter, and two pods of dolphins. Search resumes at sun up.



Monocrom said:


> There actually was some **** poor terrorist group based in India that did initially take credit for it.



Reminds me of the genius amateur terrorist baggage handlers who recently thought they'd blow up the entire airfield by igniting the jet fuel in the underground lines. Their prison classes might inform them of fuel needing air to burn..


----------



## nbp (Mar 20, 2014)

I didn't realize that the pictures of the objects were taken on Sunday! Apparently they could have floated 1000 miles since then, or sank. That has got to be a very frustrating search.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 20, 2014)

nbp said:


> As an aside, do you have any unique perspectives being in Malaysia during all this Ben? What is the feeling of those you chat with?



Nick. Being located does not give us much more than what is reported in the media. It has been a roller coaster ride for many of us here trying to make sense of this situation. 

Most are as anxious to find out where the plane is and what has happened to it. 

The route is one vey busy lane leading up to China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea. Most of us are wondering how can such a big plane disappear without a trace. 

We do hear of someone knowing someone who is in the plane though and our thoughts goes out to the family members. It must be a terrible time for them and I for one would not want to be in their shoes. 

I do hope that they locate the plane soon and bring some closure for the family assuming the worst has happened. 

As far as I am concerned, I do believe that an accident has happened. I don't buy any of those elaborate conspiracy theories.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 20, 2014)

Flight map showing how far away from Malaysia we're talking about:


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 20, 2014)

Does the plane have enough fuel to get there?


----------



## 59ride (Mar 20, 2014)




----------



## jalal20 (Mar 21, 2014)

latest news is that the plane was carrying a shipment of lithium batteries.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 21, 2014)

Where did you get that?

==========

Okay, i saw it. Apparently it was properly packed and not regarded as a risk.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 21, 2014)

Ok post removed...too soon and taken the wrong way


----------



## nbp (Mar 21, 2014)

C'mon, let's be respectful here. A lot of innocent people are missing and most likely dead. I don't really think it's appropriate to joke about.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 21, 2014)

nbp said:


> C'mon, let's be respectful here. A lot of innocent people are missing and most likely dead. I don't really think it's appropriate to joke about.



Agreed. But I hope no one takes my response as an offensive "joke". Just making some light of the ___Fire batteries and other plane threads regarding Li-Ion. I can't speak for the other posts, but I'm sure they feel the same way and hope this plane is found soon. There's a lot of effort going into the search and noone can deny or pretend to understand how the families are feeling.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 21, 2014)

Uh oh, officially brining up batteries.

From CNN:

The CEO of Malaysia Airlines confirmed that the plane was carrying lithium-ion batteries.

Lithium-ion batteries are the type commonly used in laptops and cell phones, and have been known to explode, although it is a rare occurrence.
A fire attributed to lithium-ion batteries caused the fatal 2010 crash of a UPS cargo plane in Dubai. Lithium-ion batteries used to power components in Boeing 787 aircraft were also implicated in a series of fires affecting that plane.
So, in theory, a cargo of the batteries could have caused a fire that led Flight 370 to crash.
But Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya told reporters the batteries were routine cargo.
"They are not declared dangerous goods" he said, adding that they were "some small batteries, not big batteries."


*Edit* *jalal20 *beat me to it ^^...sorry for missing that, but a little more info


----------



## nbp (Mar 21, 2014)

I know, I'm sure you didn't mean any harm, but since we do have many friends here from Malaysia and China we just have to be careful of their feelings. 

Anyways, the batteries are an interesting topic. One way or the other finding the wreckage (assuming it crashed) is the only way to know what really happened! That Air France plane took 2 years to find!


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 21, 2014)

The battery scenario was brought up a few days ago in the media; pilots are specifically trained to put out a battery fire, there's an extinguisher in the cockpit for that purpose. Still doesn't explain the left turn, the radio silence, etc..

Edit: This is going to be a js-length post, so bear with me, I've run through some goldmines of data and have come up with all this. The electrical fire idea, which has come to be known as the Goodfellow Theory (named after the guy who posited it on Google Plus) is refined considerably by a comment posted over on Slate:



> Posted by: CHARLIE STRAUSS 2 days ago
> 
> We begin with Goodfellows argument which, by the way, was also raised by another anaylyst
> 
> ...



So all the radar data is questionable, not just the altitude anomalies. But there's a good chance the programming of the left turn was just something routine which was then executed after things became un-routine - that would explain why everything was fine on the radio 12 minutes after programming, and then the turn was taken after communication was lost, because the event that necessitated the emergency turn also prevented communication. 

Another bit of info from a Slate commenter:



> Posted by: Mimi27 2 days ago
> Electrical fires can knock out communications systems all by themselves, and even if they don't, pilots faced with an emergency will NEVER prioritize talking to the ground over dealing with the emergency. The mantra is "aviate, navigate, communicate," in that order. In other words, keep the plane from crashing; try to fly somewhere you can safely land; and then, once that's taken care of, talk to the ground.



So shortly after the "good night" transmission, the turn indicates that something happened that prevented further communication, either because of equipment failure or the crew was otherwise too occupied. 

Now we add in some other bits of info:

- You don't need autopilot for the plane to continue level flight in any given direction, it can auto-trim from last given manual input indefinitely. In other words, you can point the plane in some given direction and then just leave your post, the plane will keep steady on that heading automatically.

- The 777's computer has an "alternate airport function" which at any time shows at least four of the closest suitable airports for landing. It takes two button pushes for the plane to navigate automatically and directly to the selected airport.

- There is a magnetic compass mounted on the front windshield frame in the 777's cockpit; even if everything on the plane fails, this compass will continue showing heading.

This means there are all kinds of options for the plane to conduct what appears to be normal, level flight even if the crew hasn't attended to the controls in huge spans of time. Meaning the plane would make strange heading changes, head off in odd directions, but would otherwise fly normally, if you had a situation where a crew member ran into the cockpit, made a quick destination/heading decision, oriented the plane that way, then abandoned post again.

More pertinent pieces: 

- The 777's autopilot will not allow you to set an altitude anywhere near the service ceiling, so if the 45,000 ft data is correct, it was a maneuver done specifically by hand.

- Climbing to an aircraft's service ceiling for an internal fire would do nothing, since the interior is always pressurized regardless of altitude. 

- The oxygen masks in the passenger compartment mix both cabin air and stored oxygen, this is why the crew has the option to prevent them from falling - if there's smoke in the passenger area, the masks would just provide more smoke-filled air. Only the cockpit masks provide 100% stored oxygen, using special masks that seal completely and provide goggles for the eyes.

One more key bit:

- The NTSB reported the plane was carrying an unusually large shipment of Lithium Ion batteries.

This is not referring to the Li-ions that are part of the cockpit hardware, this means there were cases of packaged, commercial batteries in the cargo hold. The cargo hold has its own fire suppression system, however it cannot necessarily prevent smoke/fumes from entering the passenger area.

SO

Putting all this together - The plane is flying normally on-course, the crew is mindfully entering alternate emergency courses along the way just in case. Everything is fine as of the "good night" transmission, then shortly after that, the cargo hold goes off like a road flare - the crew immediately selects the alternate course then rushes back into the cabin to calm/assist passengers and try to suppress smoke/fumes; the idea is to quickly resolve the smoke problem in the cabin and ensure order, then worry about communicating. But if this is a Li-ion fire, it's not just smoke, it's toxic fumes; there's going to be people at the very least complaining of dizziness and ill, and you can't use the oxygen drop-masks because they'd just be providing the same air. So it's a complete catastrophe in the passenger cabin of people suffocating and fainting, probably with plenty of smoke thrown in, and even if the cargo fire system worked, there's no guarantee the fire will remain out since whatever batteries didn't burn at first might burn later. The crew is doing frantic damage control with the passengers for long stretches of time, only occasionally returning to the cockpit to check and correct heading as needed (though there may not be a fully functional computer system at this point, so it may not be anything more involved than guessing current location versus where the nearest airport should be, then using the rudimentary compass to point that direction in the dark.) After a few course corrections, the service ceiling maneuver is attempted to put out the external fire using thin air, however the steep dive at the end would hint that there were no longer any passengers to worry about. The last control input points the plane towards an airport to the south, and the crew succumbs shortly after, the plane following the final command until fuel ran out.


----------



## Frijid (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm NOT leaning towards a highjacking for ransom. because i can't see any point in waiting this long without any kinda word. I would think that if if someone was holding them for ransom they would have made their demands known by now.


----------



## N_N_R (Mar 22, 2014)

I may sound ridiculous, but I still have hope the plane did not crash. If it had crashed, how come so many developed countries, using whatnot technology, haven't been able to find a single piece? Nobody saw that plane? It just disappeared. Not that a possible hijacking explains where the huge machine disappeared, but if it had crashed, there should've been some trace. Though, if hijacked, is it possible to cover the traces?


----------



## antoninodattola (Mar 22, 2014)

I believe that governments know the reality, and keep hidden when the information! 


in 2014 is not possible, find a plane like that, and I do not think you can turn off all the mechanisms of detection! 


the black box, in the event of an accident, should have gps turned on for many hours, and radio communications, for the finding, is not it?


----------



## mattheww50 (Mar 22, 2014)

antoninodattola said:


> I believe that governments know the reality, and keep hidden when the information!
> 
> 
> in 2014 is not possible, find a plane like that, and I do not think you can turn off all the mechanisms of detection!
> ...



The only way thing the black boxes do is record the data, and when underwater, produce an audio ping. There is no internal GPS or internal radio capability. As I believe I have pointed out previously, I believe the US Government (and probably the Russians) know where the aircraft went down, but just like the NSA secretly collecting phone data and email data, don't want to disclose the capabilities they actually have. The fact that all on board are dead removes any moral imperative (not that Governments are partiuclarily moral) to disclose what they know. 

If you want to crash an aircraft have a very low probability of it being found, the South Indian Ocean is probably the location of choice. There is reason it is referred to as the "roaring 40's". The weather conditions would scatter and debris field over a huge area in a matter of hours, and it is tough to spot debris in 5-6 meter (or worse) seas. I used to fly over that area in the late 1970's and early 1990's. 
In those days there were 4 flights per week that overflew the area. 2 on Air Mauritius (to and from Australia), and 2 on QANTAS (to and from Harare). I suspect that figure is now up to something closer to 15 a week, but that's still almost no traffic.

At least when AF447 went down, the Sat messages provided location, heading and speed information when things started to go wrong, so the search area was quite small compared to the search area for MH370. There was also considerable information about what had gone wrong. There is essential no information on MH370 in public view at this time.


----------



## nbp (Mar 22, 2014)

My knowledge of astrophysics is admittedly low but every day that goes by with no new data makes crazy theories like the plane flying into a black hole seem more plausible.


----------



## Frijid (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm still leaning that the media is pushing it to keep our minds off of the whole crimea incident


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 22, 2014)

Really mysterious. Nobody seemed to know where this plane has gone to.


----------



## mcnair55 (Mar 22, 2014)

Frijid said:


> I'm still leaning that the media is pushing it to keep our minds off of the whole crimea incident



Not in the UK both stories are getting equal air time.The West should keep there noses out of Russian affairs it has nothing to do with them.


----------



## RIX TUX (Mar 22, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Not in the UK both stories are getting equal air time.The West should keep there noses out of Russian affairs it has nothing to do with them.


if another country tried to overtake your country wouldn't you want some help?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 22, 2014)

RIX TUX said:


> if another country tried to overtake your country wouldn't you want some help?



Lets keep political view points out of this thread.

Bill


----------



## nbp (Mar 22, 2014)

Thanks Bill.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Mar 22, 2014)

Edited for Nick.


----------



## nbp (Mar 22, 2014)

Thanks.


----------



## dc38 (Mar 22, 2014)

Still sticking with my satellite hijacking conspiracy theory.


----------



## nbp (Mar 22, 2014)

Am I correct that Chinese satellites have spotted a large piece of debris similar in size and shape to the one the Australians saw about 75 miles from the initial sighting? It's a wonder they can see these things from space but then can't find them from the airplane cruising 100 ft above the water! It would sure help if they could recover this thing and confirm what it is.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 23, 2014)

From an Australian news website:

_Debris including a wooden pallet has been spotted by one of the aircraft searching for missing flight MH370, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has revealed. Mr Abbott said he was told late last night a civilian aircraft had sighted a number of objects within the search zone. It is the first direct sighting of debris and follows two hits by satellite in the past week. “Yesterday one of our civilian search aircraft got visuals on a number of objects in a fairly small area in the overall Australian search zone,” Mr Abbott said this morning. He said the debris was: “ A number of small objects, fairly close together within the Australian search zone, including a wooden pallet.”

_Bearing in mind that large junk that's found floating in the ocean is usually what's fallen off of cargo ships; a wooden pallet sounds like something from a ship, not a plane. The object spotted by the Chinese satellite is said to be ~75 feet in length and somewhat square-shaped, it doesn't really resemble a plane part..


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 23, 2014)

I suspect the images are far clearer than what they reveal. Surely they don't want the world to know their defense capabilities.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 23, 2014)

Update: "Aviation experts told the ABC that Malaysian Airlines flight 370 was carrying fruit in wooden pallets for delivery to China."


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 23, 2014)

Apparently the mangosteen pallets were sighted.


----------



## nbp (Mar 23, 2014)

How "cleanly" can a plane crash into the ocean? I picture a jet hitting the water at full speed to disintegrate into lots of pieces creating a huge field of floating bits. I am surprised at the relatively small number of items that are being spotted and are worth investigating. Granted, we still don't actually know it hit the water...


----------



## REDLINEVUE (Mar 23, 2014)

nbp said:


> How "cleanly" can a plane crash into the ocean? I picture a jet hitting the water at full speed to disintegrate into lots of pieces creating a huge field of floating bits. I am surprised at the relatively small number of items that are being spotted and are worth investigating. Granted, we still don't actually know it hit the water...



Sully Sullenberger did a pretty good job of putting a plane down over water in basically one piece.... if the water was calm enough and the pilot somewhat accomplished, it can be done. What baffles me is how we can spot small object extremely far out in space using ground and/or geosynchronous telescopes with AMAZING accuracy.... but turn those telescope back to OUR planet and you can't give us better coordinates as to the location of this floating debris??? I would expect they should be able to say "go look here" and provide a 1/4mi search area.


----------



## rednek (Mar 23, 2014)

I think there 'LOST' on the island!!


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 23, 2014)

Ditching involves perfect timing and condition. Even if it breaks into large pieces, some will sink while others will float. 
You need to remember that we are talking about an incident 2 weeks ago. Even a clustered debris can be miles apart after all that time and subjected to current and waves. 

I have a feeling that they may never find the wreckage.


----------



## REDLINEVUE (Mar 24, 2014)

BenChiew said:


> .......... You need to remember that we are talking about an incident 2 weeks ago.................................
> 
> I have a feeling that they may never find the wreckage.



+1 .... or an airplane hidden under a tarp in some remote airfield.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 24, 2014)

Lol. Their families would love this to be true.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Mar 24, 2014)

REDLINEVUE said:


> What baffles me is how we can spot small object extremely far out in space using ground and/or geosynchronous telescopes with AMAZING accuracy.... but turn those telescope back to OUR planet and you can't give us better coordinates as to the location of this floating debris??? I would expect they should be able to say "go look here" and provide a 1/4mi search area.



Optics! Read here XKCD: What-If on Hubble for a discussion of "What if we pointed Hubble at the Earth?" Hubble is certainly not designed to look at the Earth. I don't know what today's camera satellites are capable of.

Most 'spy sats' are in orbits chosen for frequent coverage (Low orbits) or station-keeping (High, geosynchronous). Photography from satellites is difficult, but not impossible. Target acquisition, though, is. They'd be looking for small shiny objects in a large, shiny ocean. Most cameras (IR, visible, etc) would only work in daylight. Radar probably doesn't have the range to reach from orbit (Without toasting nearby objects).


----------



## REDLINEVUE (Mar 24, 2014)

AnAppleSnail said:


> Optics! Read here XKCD: What-If on Hubble for a discussion of "What if we pointed Hubble at the Earth?" Hubble is certainly not designed to look at the Earth. I don't know what today's camera satellites are capable of.
> 
> Most 'spy sats' are in orbits chosen for frequent coverage (Low orbits) or station-keeping (High, geosynchronous). Photography from satellites is difficult, but not impossible. Target acquisition, though, is. They'd be looking for small shiny objects in a large, shiny ocean. Most cameras (IR, visible, etc) would only work in daylight. Radar probably doesn't have the range to reach from orbit (Without toasting nearby objects).



Great read, but... 

I was really just speaking from a technology standpoint as the human race in general and how far we have come... We can map (from satellite) homes and small areas with GREAT detail.. Forget hubble or radar .... just using that already posted satellite image, why the uncertainty abouts its contents. Even with tidal drift and rotation of the earth, there should be NO NEED for it to take DAYS to get over to that exact spot and look. Just seems ridiculous that picture was posted without a SOLID confirmation or rejection of its contents within say 12hrs.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 24, 2014)

Prime Minister Najib said: “With deep sadness and regret, according to this new data, we must conclude flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean."


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 24, 2014)

Families told all lives lost.


----------



## N_N_R (Mar 24, 2014)

:'( .......


----------



## Dave D (Mar 24, 2014)

R.I.P. to all those lost and condolences to all those left behind.


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 24, 2014)

BenChiew said:


> Prime Minister Najib said: “With deep sadness and regret, according to this new data, we must conclude flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean."



Very unfortunate. Though not surprising. The only silver lining is that this bit of latest news won't be a total surprise for the families.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Mar 24, 2014)

Family and friends, not knowing anything for two weeks,, holding on to a waning sliver of hope,,, :candle:

Damn that's rough! Hard to imagine.......

Make sure your people know you love them. :grouphug:

~ Chance


----------



## cland72 (Mar 24, 2014)

BenChiew said:


> Prime Minister Najib said: “With deep sadness and regret, according to this new data, we must conclude flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean."



That's hard to swallow without any physical evidence, but at this point it's the most likely conclusion.

The question now is "why"? Was it a hijacking gone bad?


----------



## moldyoldy (Mar 24, 2014)

A couple websites have recently had interviews with pilots who stated that the most probable cause that fits the evidence is fire. 

Some number of posts back StarHalo postulated a scenario of events and cited source - also pointing to a fire.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 24, 2014)

HuffPo update:

_Inmarsat, the company whose analysis undergirds today's announcement on flight MH370, explained to SkyNews how it was able to locate the flightpath of the missing plane._

_As the company had already announced earlier, its satellites kept receiving hourly signals from the plane despite the fact that the jet's communication systems were switched off. Inmarsat then analyzed data from flights that took a similar path to MH370._

_Inmarsat's senior vice president Chris McLoughlin said:_

_"What we did two weeks ago was say it could be north or it could be south, and what we've done is refined that with the signals we got from other aircraft and that gives you a very good fit."_
_"Previous aircraft provided a pattern, and that pattern to the south is virtually what we got in our suggested estimate. The fit is very, very strong."_
_"We passed the information on after it had been peer reviewed by others in the UK air industry and after it had been compared with Boeing."_


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Mar 24, 2014)

*Flight MH370 - 200kg of lithium-ion batteries on board.*

I hope we are not looking at a flight ban an on lithium-ion batteries, even without any proof that they caused any problems.

John.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/258069


----------



## magellan (Mar 24, 2014)

*Re: Flight MH370 - 200kg of lithium-ion batteries on board.*

I wouldn't care if there was a ban on shipping them by air. They can just go by ship, rail, and truck instead. 

What I don't understand is since the batteries were probably made in China why are they shipping 200kg back to China?


----------



## Leadsender (Mar 24, 2014)

*Re: Flight MH370 - 200kg of lithium-ion batteries on board.*



magellan said:


> I wouldn't care if there was a ban on shipping them by air. They can just go by ship, rail, and truck instead.
> 
> What I don't understand is since the batteries were probably made in China why are they shipping 200kg back to China?



If they banned them in airplanes, wouldn't that mean that civilians wouldn't be able to carry them on board anymore. For me personally that would be a horrible outcome as a majority of lights are powered with these batteries and I fly quite often.


----------



## magellan (Mar 24, 2014)

*Re: Flight MH370 - 200kg of lithium-ion batteries on board.*

Presumably that would be the case.

Some countries already have bans on shipping them by air and on passengers having them from what I understand. 

The way I handle the issue is that I leave my lithium powered batteries at home and just use my AA powered lights when I fly. But I bring the lithium flashlights with me, minus the batteries. Since most of my flying is between our house and a vacation house a few times a year, and both are in the U.S., I just keep a few lithiums at the vacation house and put them back in the flashlight when I arrive.

I realize my situation has a simple solution which might not work for most people. But there was a detailed post here by Newbie that showed there is about a 1 in 1600 chance of a battery incident. That might not seem like terrible odds but just think of how you'd feel if it was plastered all over the news that it was your flashlight and battery that caused a serious incident on board an airliner.

Not for me. I'm easily discouraged and will manage just fine with my AA light until I get where I'm going.

Being on board a plane is different. Unlike a car, you can't roll down the window and toss the offending device out into some field. Or stop and park the car and run like hell if the battery has already vented. Kinda hard to do at 30,000 feet.


----------



## Frijid (Mar 24, 2014)

*Re: Flight MH370 - 200kg of lithium-ion batteries on board.*

apparently CNN is now saying they have "closure" and are sure the plane went down in the ocean. I for one don't believe it. I'm not from the state of missouri, but i still have a "shoe me" attitude, and until i can see come concrete evidence, i'm calling Bologna Sandwhich. I believe they are just getting "tired" of searching and are just pushing this as a quick way to just get it outta everyone mind. More or less so people will be like "oh everyone on the plane died, hey what football game is on tonight?"
[h=1][/h]


----------



## nbp (Mar 24, 2014)

I sort of agree Frijid. Without actually finding the plane or any significant part of it, how are they any more sure now than two weeks ago? If they can just make that claim, why not do that a day or two after it disappeared? While it *probably* is in the ocean, it seems suspect to state as fact without conclusive evidence. Idk...


Also, perhaps the mods could put this thread back in the Cafe? It's really more of a current event thread than an exploding battery thread. I don't really feel it fits here. Thanks.


----------



## orbital (Mar 24, 2014)

+

Just incredible!!!
Nations all over the world don't know what brought down this plane


*
..but CandlePowerForum does _______:shakehead:shakehead*

100% speculation & assumption


----------



## Frijid (Mar 24, 2014)

nbp said:


> Without actually finding the plane or any significant part of it, how are they any more sure now than two weeks ago?




I know right? I've heard there is still garbage floating around in the ocean from the typhoon that hit japan. If i recall, i believe a wave of trash hit the coast of california here a few months ago. all i've seen on tv is just some poor quality images that clearly show anything BUT concrete evidence of an airplane. Still waiting for them to trace the signal on the black box from the airplane


----------



## Norm (Mar 24, 2014)

nbp said:


> While it *probably* is in the ocean, *it seems suspect to state as fact without conclusive evidence*. Idk...
> 
> Also, perhaps the mods could put this thread back in the Cafe? It's really more of a current event thread than an exploding battery thread. I don't really feel it fits here. Thanks.


Let's save the battery thread for factual information, not speculation of an unconfirmed event.

Norm


----------



## Jumpmaster (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm given to understand that the cockpit voice recorder generally records between thirty minutes to two hours of audio only...and then is overwritten. If this is the case and there was some "event" that occurred at the time the plane made that turn off course...and flew for six or seven more hours, it's unlikely that there will be any audio on the CVR.

Has this occurred to anyone else?

I've learned that flight data recorders tend to have a longer timeframe of data, so maybe it can shed some light on what happened...


----------



## nbp (Mar 24, 2014)

Norm said:


> Let's save the battery thread for factual information, not speculation of an unconfirmed event. Norm



I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. 

I never said I thought it was a battery explosion that caused the plane to crash. I'm not even 100% convinced the plane is in the Indian Ocean, though there is a good chance that it is, as I noted before. On the contrary, the complete lack of any hard evidence to support the theory that the cargo of batteries caused the plane to crash is why I asked for the thread to be removed from the Flaming Battery subforum. At this point, there is as much evidence that the fruit the plane was transporting caused it to crash as there is that the lithium batteries did. 

Until the wreckage is recovered or the plane is found parked somewhere in the Middle East, we simply cannot say for certain. And that is why I think it is odd that the authorities are making these official statements.


----------



## orbital (Mar 24, 2014)

^ 

*That's what Norm is saying.*

Frankly, I'd love to hear the argument on how a massive inferno on a plane could keep it's structural integrity for hours of flying.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 24, 2014)

Jumpmaster said:


> I've learned that flight data recorders tend to have a longer timeframe of data, so maybe it can shed some light on what happened...



I worry they'll recover extremely thorough and detailed data regarding the plane's flight path, showing every bit of minutia regarding how the plane maneuvered, but revealing nothing else, which would only deepen the mystery..



orbital said:


> Frankly, I'd love to hear the argument on how a massive inferno on a plane could keep it's structural integrity for hours of flying.



The cargo hold's fire suppression system should be able to handle some jetting batteries, the problem is smoke/fumes, and then more batteries flaring up over time. It could start with one box going off, then become manageable, then a few more boxes would go off, etc.


----------



## magellan (Mar 24, 2014)

nbp said:


> I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
> 
> I never said I thought it was a battery explosion that caused the plane to crash. I'm not even 100% convinced the plane is in the Indian Ocean, though there is a good chance that it is, as I noted before. On the contrary, the complete lack of any hard evidence to support the theory that the cargo of batteries caused the plane to crash is why I asked for the thread to be removed from the Flaming Battery subforum. At this point, there is as much evidence that the fruit the plane was transporting caused it to crash as there is that the lithium batteries did.
> 
> Until the wreckage is recovered or the plane is found parked somewhere in the Middle East, we simply cannot say for certain. And that is why I think it is odd that the authorities are making these official statements.





<<At this point, there is as much evidence that the fruit the plane was transporting caused it to crash as there is that the lithium batteries did.>>


I agree, but on the other hand fruits and vegetables have never been known to spontaneously explode or vent.


----------



## moldyoldy (Mar 24, 2014)

*Re: Flight MH370 - 200kg of lithium-ion batteries on board.*



Frijid said:


> apparently CNN is now saying they have "closure" and are sure the plane went down in the ocean. I for one don't believe it. I'm not from the state of missouri, but i still have a "shoe me" attitude, and until i can see come concrete evidence, i'm calling Bologna Sandwhich. I believe they are just getting "tired" of searching and are just pushing this as a quick way to just get it outta everyone mind. More or less so people will be like "oh everyone on the plane died, hey what football game is on tonight?"



fyi: an answer to how did the aviation authorities finally decide where the missing Boeing 777 flew:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_24_2014_p0-674902.xml

Edit: Remember how long it took search teams to find the Air France flight. This event may take longer due to the depth of the south Indian Ocean - which is well known for it's Roaring 40s winds which will further confound the search situation.


----------



## nbp (Mar 24, 2014)

orbital said:


> ^ That's what Norm is saying.



Ok, I wasn't sure if it was at me or with me.


----------



## nbp (Mar 24, 2014)

magellan said:


> <<At this point, there is as much evidence that the fruit the plane was transporting caused it to crash as there is that the lithium batteries did.>> I agree, but on the other hand fruits and vegetables have never been known to spontaneously explode or vent.



Of course you are correct, but I am just using the line of reasoning to emphasize why I think people should be careful about making an assumption about what happened before something (ANYTHING!!!) is known for certain. Apparently they are sending a ping searching machine that can hear the black boxes in up to 20k feet of water. About time!


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 25, 2014)

Another 3+ hours of reading:

It wasn't fire.

And I have the definitive data that shows how Inmarsat concluded the southern arc of the flight path. But I need sleep, so stay tuned.


----------



## orbital (Mar 25, 2014)

nbp said:


> Ok, I wasn't sure if it was at me or with me.



+

with you :thumbsup:

the bold text on my post 105 was a bit out of place,


----------



## mattheww50 (Mar 25, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Another 3+ hours of reading:
> 
> It wasn't fire.
> 
> And I have the definitive data that shows how Inmarsat concluded the southern arc of the flight path. But I need sleep, so stay tuned.


I also doubt it was a fire. However my belief is based upon what we know about the behavior of the auto pilot in large commercial aircraft. Some of you may remember the crash of a Helios 737 some years ago, which involved a situation where the crew was incapacitated due to a pressurization problem with the aircraft. The autopilot flew the aicraft from way point to way point. When it reach the final waypoint
it simply circled it until it ran out of fuel. Since we know the aircraft made a least two substantial changes in heading, this suggests the autopilot was in fact navigating from way point to way point (as opposed to constant heading mode). There is no evidence that the aircraft reached a final way point and circled. This also suggests that the those in control planned the event. 

If you want to crash an airplane in a place where the odds on finding it are slim, the south Indian Ocean would be my choice. The weather tends to be awful (There is a reason it is referred to as the "roaring 40's"), and there is very little air traffic in the area. By contrast the northern arc travels some very heavily used air traffic corridors. While the Primary radars used in Malaysia, Thailand are somewhat suspect,
the Chinese, Pakistani and Indian primary radars would have been active, and any return without a transponder would almost certainly have set off 'alarms' and probably scrambled at least one aircraft to intercept. So I have always regarded the northern arc as unlikely. 

While the black boxes will provide useful information about the events leading up to fuel exhaustion, the cockpit voice recorder probably will not. It can only store a couple of hours of cockpit/radio conversation. While I suspect the black boxes will eventually be found, I don't expect it to happen any time soon.


----------



## Jumpmaster (Mar 25, 2014)

mattheww50 said:


> While the black boxes will provide useful information about the events leading up to fuel exhaustion, the cockpit voice recorder probably will not. It can only store a couple of hours of cockpit/radio conversation.



Yeah...I pointed this out last night.

Another theory someone posited is that one of the pilots locked the other one out and then committed suicide (cyanide pill, etc.)...that might fit what happened as well as any other theory...pilot secures the door with other pilot outside, sets autopilot to some waypoint out in the middle of nowhere in the southern Indian Ocean, then takes the pill...plane runs out of fuel after many hours, etc...

And no, I'm not saying I know what happened as someone else posted...it's just another theory. There is really very little confirmed, known-accurate information about this yet so theories will abound.


----------



## mcnair55 (Mar 25, 2014)

Lots of armchair aviation anoraks on here,would be better to let the real people get on with there jobs and report in via the news when they are ready.


----------



## Steve K (Mar 25, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Lots of armchair aviation anoraks on here,would be better to let the real people get on with there jobs and report in via the news when they are ready.



but how do we know that the "real people" aren't part of the conspiracy??!! 

yep... let the investigators investigate... gather data, and then see what the data suggests or supports.


----------



## Jumpmaster (Mar 25, 2014)

You know what? Nevermind. Not important.


----------



## nbp (Mar 25, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Lots of armchair aviation anoraks on here,would be better to let the real people get on with there jobs and report in via the news when they are ready.



You sure use the term anorak often. 

If you are not interested in discussing the topic, feel free to avoid the thread. 

Furthermore, If it assuages your concerns any, I am confident our discussion here won't hinder the efforts of any "real people" involved in the investigation.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 25, 2014)

rolling bump


----------



## Jumpmaster (Mar 25, 2014)

nbp said:


> You sure use the term anorak often.
> 
> If you are not interested in discussing the topic, feel free to avoid the thread.
> 
> Furthermore, If it assuages your concerns any, I am confident our discussion here won't hinder the efforts of any "real people" involved in the investigation.



Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you, nbp.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 25, 2014)

Jumpmaster said:


> Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you, nbp.



Let's not carry this on any further. Member nbp said it well, so we don't need any more quotes.

Bill


----------



## mcnair55 (Mar 25, 2014)

nbp said:


> You sure use the term anorak often.
> 
> If you are not interested in discussing the topic, feel free to avoid the thread.
> 
> Furthermore, If it assuages your concerns any, I am confident our discussion here won't hinder the efforts of any "real people" involved in the investigation.



I certainally do use the term often you are correct and i enjoy the thread in most parts.:thumbsup:


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 25, 2014)

Attempting to return thread to topic:

Okay, good sleep, good coffee, here we go:

Those who want longform evidence of how Inmarsat came to their conclusion about the southern arc can view a very mathematically-detailed post here, however Moldyoldy's link above is the summary; basic trigonometry combined with the Doppler Effect of the plane moving away at a specific attitude makes it clear that the southern arc is correct. All that's left to calculate from there is time, determined by the satellite pings, and distance, determined by fuel load. You end up arriving at a patch roughly 2,200 km WSW of Australia.

On to fire and why there wasn't one - some interesting facts about Lithium-ion batteries and Halon fire suppressant:

_The most common fire suppressants used in commercial aircraft fire suppression systems are called Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 (respectively, CF2ClBr and CF3Br). The FAA did some tests on Halon 1301 and Li-Ion batteries a decade ago (http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/04-26.pdf). From the executive summary:

Halon 1301, the fire suppression agent installed in transport category aircraft, is ineffective in suppressing or extinguishing a primary lithium battery fire. Halon 1301 appears to chemically interact with the burning lithium and electrolyte, causing a color change in the molten lithium sparks, turning them a deep red instead of the normal white. This chemical interaction has no effect on battery fire duration or intensity. The air temperature in a cargo compartment that has had a fire suppressed by Halon 1301 can still be above the autoignition temperature of lithium. Because of this, batteries that were not involved in the initial fire can still ignite and propagate. The ignition of a primary lithium battery releases burning electrolyte and a molten lithium spray. The cargo liner material may be vulnerable to perforation by molten lithium, depending on its thickness. This can allow the Halon 1301 fire suppressant agent to leak out of the compartment, reducing the concentration within the cargo compartment and the effectiveness of the agent. Holes in the cargo liner may also allow flames to spread outside the compartment.

The color change of the lithium sparks indicated that a reaction was occurring between the lithium and the Halon 1301. This reaction had no effect on the fire progression, neither hindering nor promoting the spread of the battery fire. The vented electrolyte fires, normally pale red in color, turned bright red when exposed to Halon 1301. The battery fire continued to propagate until all batteries were consumed, continuing long after the 1-propanol fire was extinguished. The halon also had no effect on the peak temperatures in the test chamber, peaking at about 1400°F. This is similar to the peak temperatures exhibited in previous unsuppressed fires. However, the overall temperature profiles were lower, due to the extinguishment of the 1-propanol and battery plastic coating fires._

So there's some insight about why Li-ions on planes are controversial - the suppression system has enough Halon to saturate the hold for at least one hour (some systems can go a full three hours), but this would only prevent everything else in the hold from catching fire, the batteries would continue burning unimpeded.

A post from a pilot on a piloting form fills us in on what to do/what he's done regarding cargo fires:



> Posted by: Albert Driver
> 
> So, for the benefit of non-pilots, let's talk about fire - from the point of view of this former 747-400 commander's experience.
> 
> ...



And therein lies the gaping hole in the cargo fire theory: If a fire disabled the plane's electronics to the point that they couldn't even communicate, then how did they make use of the autopilot and/or guidance system to continue navigating the plane? The 777's autopilot is not available if portions of the plane's electronics are offline/disabled, it logically only works if it knows everything is in order. Yet the lengthy Southern flight path is roughly straight (or magnetically straight, more on that later) which would indicate a computer-directed course. 

Another issue would be smoke, a point nicely illustrated by skywriting: a small airplane uses a bottle of oil that jets into the exhaust manifold creating white smoke and thus writing in the sky which is visible on the ground. So now scale this up to a Boeing 777 with a chemically-accelerated raging cargo hold inferno - there should be a massive trail of smoke that's completely disproportionate to the size of the plane, which would not only be evident on the ground at any altitude, but would stick out plainly on weather satellite. But there's no evidence of any such contrail on the weather maps of the 370's flight path area, it makes no contrail for most of the flight (if only it did, and would then reveal the flight path concretely..)

So if the mayday call is procedure, what of the polar opposite of that reaction, the radio silence? If the electronics were still in good enough condition to navigate/autopilot by, then the lack of a transponder signal is key. The transponder control is a four-detent knob located on the center console; the far-right position is the normal position that sends out the plane's identification. The only way to cut the transponder signal completely is to turn this knob all the way to the left, something that would never be done for any reason on a commercial flight. So the transponder was deliberately turned off, at the same time radio silence was enforced, at the same time the left turn was deliberately selected. 

The supposed service ceiling maneuver, which was gleaned from questionable data, would not have been done in the event of a fire; as noted above, procedure is to drop altitude immediately, not rise. Inmarsat's data shows a consistent cruise at ~30,000 feet, no anomalous altitude changes. Either way, it is consistent with the data: An incongruous and unexplained jump in altitude would fit with an incongruous and unexplained flight path, and if the engines sent ersatz data because electrical buses were turned off and on it would fit with deliberate tampering with the plane's electrical system in an attempt to cut all communication. Premeditation is indicated in both cases.

The straight-and-steady southern flight path may have been steered-in to follow a heading as opposed to a course laid in, since it appears to have followed a magnetic south course and not a straight line; where the wreckage is found will ultimately help determine this, since if it's more to the east it was probably following a magnetic heading, but if its more to the west it was following a true heading/a way point. This is why the search has been progressing along a general east/west course. 

So everything points to deliberation, some irrational but intentional action that may not have had any fixed motive or plan beyond the immediate escape from oversight. No guarantee that it was the pilot or crew, but it was someone with comparable knowledge of the plane. 



nbp said:


> How "cleanly" can a plane crash into the ocean?



There's been some comparison to Sully's "Miracle on the Hudson", and to that end there is good news and bad news: The good news is that if the 777 runs out of fuel while on autopilot, it will assume you want to hold your heading and level-as-possible flight, so it will at that point become a giant glider, carefully maintaining the nose attitude while gracefully descending. The bad news is that the plane will also assume you want to hold your speed, so it will make no attempt to slow from the ~500 mph cruising velocity.


----------



## orbital (Mar 25, 2014)

^

thank you for your background reading & solid overview on this




__________________________________________


----------



## nbp (Mar 25, 2014)

+1

Very good post; I had to read it twice!


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2014)

That French satellite is really something, especially given the amount of cloud cover:


----------



## markr6 (Mar 26, 2014)

Yeah thankfully there were some gaps in the clouds...I wonder what's under all that thick cloud cover?


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 26, 2014)

That is a lot of debris down there.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2014)

Jumpmaster said:


> it's unlikely that there will be any audio on the CVR.
> 
> Has this occurred to anyone else?



If the passengers got to keep their cell phones, there could be hundreds of hours of audio, video, pictures, notes, etc. Flash memory holds up pretty well in water.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2014)

We've heard from pilots, now let's hear from engineers:



> Posted by: Supplier Sam
> 
> Gentlemen-
> Let me share a few thoughts from a man who designed bits and pieces of the missing airplane, and probably bits and pieces of half the jets you folks fly on.
> ...


----------



## cland72 (Mar 26, 2014)

Wow!!


----------



## moldyoldy (Mar 26, 2014)

regarding the 'fuzzy' images of debris and repeatedly delayed information in the search process:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/asia/geopolitical-rivalries-jet.html?hp&_r=0

Notice the wind and wave speed animation images part way down the page. Talk about 'Roaring 40's'!


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 26, 2014)

moldyoldy said:


> Notice the wind and wave speed animation images part way down the page. Talk about 'Roaring 40's'!



Yeah, find the debris:


----------



## nbp (Mar 26, 2014)

Holy cats! That's some rough sea! :wow:

And a very interesting discussion of the mechanics of the plane in the earlier post as well. That would certainly lend strength to the thought that maybe it was not catastrophic failure but something intentional...


----------



## markr6 (Mar 27, 2014)

What's the big deal about guarding "satellite technology"? Hasn't everyone seen Google Earth or online map sites? If we (I'm assuming some US company) can take a satellite image of my home to the point where I can see a 6" flower pot on my patio, it would seem like the cat's totally out of the bag. What's to hide? Being able to view an ant walking on the sidewalk?

And I'm not even talking about the 45° or birds eye view which give insanely detailed photos...those may be taken by some other type of satellite not available in this area of the Indian Ocean??...just guessing. Regardless, these satellite photos over the ocean look more like the B&W stuff taken in the mid-90s and nothing like the stuff on Google, Bing, etc.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 27, 2014)

If you'd like to see a 777 electronically immolate itself, there's documentation of an incident here; not much to see though, it was already smoking externally before it got off the ground, and at no time did it disable communications or locators.



markr6 said:


> What's the big deal about guarding "satellite technology"?



It's not the satellites that are being guarded, it's the radar - As satellites go, you're not going to park your multi-billion dollar black project camera over completely empty South Indian Ocean, eyes only go where there's something to see. So there's not a lot going on satellite-wise, or at least there wasn't until the relevant nations had a couple of weeks to move a spare satellite or two into position.

Radar is the bigger secret, because if you reveal what you saw or didn't see, that tells everyone else what you can or can't see. India has already admitted that they didn't release any radar data because they missed the plane entirely - it was flying through a hole in their radar coverage, which they now have to fix because the whole world knows.


----------



## moldyoldy (Mar 27, 2014)

Ref the 777 incident in the link above: A nice factual report. What I appreciated more were the identified production changes made either pre- or post-incident to the insulation and contactors. In particular I note the significant improvement in the depth of the arc chute around each contact set. In my experience, transfer switches and contactors were the primary failure point for high-current switching. We lost about 1/year in the plant, usually when transferring part of the plant load to the big backup generators for testing. The result was sudden darkness (flashaholic time!) and work lost. The contact material transfer from one contact to the other during the instant of initial electrical 'contact' is a frequent source of later failures. The depth of some of the pits on one contact and the corresponding growth on the other contact was truly impressive. Yet the nominal steady-state current ratings were not exceeded.

Ref the satellite vs radar images: Star Halo is absolutely correct. Satellite resources for photography are rather scarce, especially the high-resolution types that are probably mostly focused on Eastern Ukraine, the bordering Russian territory, and the Crimea. Also, it takes quite a bit of fuel to move satellites to view an area such as the Southern Indian Ocean that is rarely of significance. However, the radar coverage, or not, was really embarassing for several of the nations in the initial flight area. The radar operators in the different nations either did not have their radars turned on, had a hole in their coverage, or simply missed the signficance of a stray passenger A/C. All of this was duly noted by the militaries of the neighboring nations.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 27, 2014)

The search is being moved 700 miles NE based on new information that states the plane was moving faster than originally thought. No indication on where this data is coming from, and that puts the search zone almost directly over the Diamantina Abyssal, ~5 miles deep..


----------



## Burgess (Mar 27, 2014)

Great thread here !

Thank you to everyone for your contributions.

lovecpf
-


----------



## nbp (Mar 27, 2014)

Hundreds more pieces of ocean junk seen from space this week by several satellites all of which *could* be part of the plane's debris field; yet to my knowledge we have yet to physically capture a single piece of this debris from any of the satellite images. 

I honestly do not understand this. I know there are rough seas and currents, but if you know the initial location of the item(s) from the satellite, the elapsed time, and general current speed and direction, you should be able to get within at least a couple hundred mile radius of the chunks of floating stuff and find it fairly easily. They are covering thousands of square miles per day, how can they be missing all of these hundreds of pieces of garbage floating around?! Not one piece can be recovered?!


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 28, 2014)

nbp said:


> I honestly do not understand this.



- The search area is roughly the size of Texas, and very little of a commercial airplane floats. A commenter compared the search to "finding a green grain of sand on a golf course."

- All the ultra-tech satellites are otherwise busy, so you're just getting the bargain leftover satellites a couple weeks late. Each pixel is going to be a few feet across, good enough for general shapes and forms; a photo could have been centered perfectly on the piece of the body with the plane number, and it's just going to look like a white blob. Or a wave. That's why you're seeing pictures of debris fields and not debris pieces. Aside from that, someone has to determine what is an object and what is a wave, so you're looking at a few days of image processing time before what's photographed is published.

- There's the issue of ocean trash, so most of what is photographed will be "decoy" material.

- Everything moves everywhere constantly on the ocean, so much so that we're not entirely sure which way it's going. We thought we had some solid data on south sea currents from a couple of decades ago, but it would appear that climate change has moved one belt this way and one gyre that way, and now it's pretty much a crap shoot. Plus there are vertical currents under the water, so even if it doesn't float around, it still gets moved around. 

- The info on where the plane actually hit the water is purely extrapolated from a pile of data, which is going to have a lot of assumptions, and we know for certain the data available to the public is not at all complete. Even if you knew exactly where it impacted, we're back to everything moving around. And since you may not even be searching in the right area, we're back to the Texas-size search region.


----------



## orbital (Mar 28, 2014)

+

_tic-toc ,, tic-toc_
What's taking the FBI so long on the Capt. Shah hard drive forensics? 

either they have some info already, or the drive was purposely wiped clean


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 28, 2014)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> _tic-toc ,, tic-toc_
> What's taking the FBI so long on the Capt. Shah hard drive forensics?
> ...



+1.


----------



## BenChiew (Mar 28, 2014)

Strangely it took Boeing a number of days to calculate and to arrive at the conclusion that the plane could not have gone so far.


----------



## mattheww50 (Mar 28, 2014)

BenChiew said:


> Strangely it took Boeing a number of days to calculate and to arrive at the conclusion that the plane could not have gone so far.


Fuel burn is simple only as long as the routing, speed and altitudes are well known. Commercial airlines can calculate the fuel burn quite accurately with good weather information, good altitude, good speed and good routing information. In the case of MH370, ,once they turned around, none of that information is particularly good, and any such calculation suddenly requires a large number of assumptions that may or may not turn out to be good. For example flying below the radar will more than double the fuel burn, the climb back up to cruise will burn a lot of fuel, and getting the aircraft above the service ceiling will burn a lot of fuel. What the time it took for Boeing to come up with a revised range suggests is considerably more about the likely flight 'profile' of MH370 is known than is being publicized.

With respect to the sat imagery, as others have pointed out, we are getting the 'leftovers'. Nobody wants to disclose the actual capability of their most valuable assets, so we are seeing imagery only from sats whose capabilities are already public. As for finding the debris, even if you know where it is, it isn't going to be easy to spot. Conditions in the "roaring 40's" are not much different than you would see at sea during a hurricane! This is of course further complicated by the fact the debris is scattered in what is effectively a giant junk yard. I don't doubt that the remains of MH370 will be found, but it is likely to be a very long drawn out process.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 28, 2014)

A great graphic published yesterday regarding the new search area provides a good sense of scale; note the size of the previously searched areas on the left versus the entire continent of Australia on the right:










orbital said:


> What's taking the FBI so long on the Capt. Shah hard drive forensics?



A blurb somewhere mentioned that some data has been recovered and there was nothing out of the ordinary, implying that there was a software housecleaning program that automatically erased files from time to time to keep the hard drive clean.

*Update:* Today the New York Times is reporting that the FBI search of the flight sim/computer found no incriminating evidence.



BenChiew said:


> Strangely it took Boeing a number of days to calculate and to arrive at the conclusion that the plane could not have gone so far.



The new search area is based on some sort of info that isn't public, even the form of the info isn't being discussed; the two candidate rumored causes are A) Indonesian radar data showing the plane didn't zig-zag on its northern track so much as thought before, instead flying father north and then turning, and B) Japanese satellite data which is higher-quality than previously seen, revealing debris that has the Malaysia Air colors. 

It's getting more difficult to avoid the rumor and speculation since the secrecy ensures we know less by the day..


----------



## Lord Muzzy (Mar 28, 2014)

With all the conflicting information the conspiracy theorists are all over this and I suspect will be for years to come.

I only hope the families of the missing get some kind of closure.


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 28, 2014)

Regarding what happens when fuel runs out under autopilot:



> Posted by: Suninmyeyes
> 
> As a 777 pilot I, like many others, have wondered how the 777 would perform in the scenario where the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft ran out of fuel. I had my ideas but there is nothing like seeing it for "real" so we tried this in a 777-2 full motion zero flight time approved simulator.
> 
> ...



So the previous info about the 777 becoming a "big glider" is sort of correct, except the plane fails to hold heading, and it slowly noses up and down over a very long distance. The "APU" mentioned is the Auxiliary Power Unit, a small engine that works like a generator (you might have noticed what looks like a car engine exhaust in the tail of a commercial airplane - that's the APU.) If both the engines and the APU don't work, then there's no electricity for the more advanced gadgets on the plane, like the satellite reporting device that provided the pings that clued in where 370 was; the final ping that was received was only partial and occurred only a few minutes after the last complete one - it's possible this partial, strangely timed ping was the APU sending a brief surge as it was trying to restart.


----------



## nbp (Mar 28, 2014)

Multicolor debris spotted by actual planes in the new search area Friday with ships on the way to try to capture and investigate it. Some hope for clues?


----------



## Frijid (Mar 29, 2014)

I wonder if it's possible that some of the debris is some junk floating around after that typhoon or tsunami that hit japan? If i recall, i believe hearing news stations a few months ago some of it was washing up on our shores?


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 29, 2014)

Frijid said:


> I wonder if it's possible that some of the debris is some junk floating around after that typhoon or tsunami that hit japan? If i recall, i believe hearing news stations a few months ago some of it was washing up on our shores?


 
No, Japan is northern hemisphere, this is southern. There's an offhand chance something from 370 might wash up off of Perth, though the current goes mostly north there..


----------



## nbp (Mar 29, 2014)

> Ships have pulled possible debris from the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 out of the Indian Ocean after another day of intensive searching.
> 
> The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said a number of objects had been retrieved from the sea by a Chinese and Australian vessel.
> 
> A spokesman for AMSA said they were not confirmed to be related to MH370 and would be analysed.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Mar 30, 2014)

[h=1]"Floating debris ‘not from’ missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 as FBI rules out anything sinister on captain’s flight simulator."[/h]
That's the latest update as of 1700hrs today.


----------



## dc38 (Mar 30, 2014)

If this were a hostage situation, demands would have been made within 2 weeks. If it were a crash, there would possibly be greater amounts of evidence trails to follow. I still think it was a satellite hijacking...the lack of evidence, the relative "eagerness" by officials to conclude that the plane is lost, inconclusive wide scale searches, instantaneous loss of signal? 

Just imagine the gravity of getting closer to being able to hijack almost ANY aircraft at ANY point in time ANYWHERE in the world. How many passenger planes have been "upgraded" with "newer technology"? Perhaps with navigation and steering controls that can be remotely accessed?

Now imagine that I'm just a teeny tiny blubbering maniac that doesn't matter because I'm not being "rational". There is a method to all madness, except when people try to breed order from chaos.


----------



## nbp (Mar 30, 2014)

At this point I would say that theory is as plausible as anything else I have heard. :shrug:


----------



## StarHalo (Mar 30, 2014)

If you could remotely hijack planes, I would think military aircraft would be a far more useful target. Why turn off some 777's transponder when you could turn on a B-52's targeting computer..

An onboard hijacking situation needn't require days to resolve, it may have been negotiated over the course of a few hours and then ended poorly.


----------



## Shooter21 (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm thinking that they tried to hijack the plane for another 9/11 type attack but the passengers fought back and caused the plane to crash into the ocean.


----------



## dc38 (Mar 31, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> If you could remotely hijack planes, I would think military aircraft would be a far more useful target. Why turn off some 777's transponder when you could turn on a B-52's targeting computer..
> 
> An onboard hijacking situation needn't require days to resolve, it may have been negotiated over the course of a few hours and then ended poorly.



A hijacking of a military aircraft would be counterproductive if this were a preliminary demo...it would've raised too many flags and everybody would've gone straight to some high-priority DEFCON status...Also, doesn't it cost less to 'expend' civilian transports than it does for a single fighter/bomber (with a full payload)?


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 1, 2014)

> Posted by: Planoramix
> 
> My personal view as B777 Captain:
> 
> ...



That transponder is key; even if the entire plane wasn't responding to input, the pilot could have switched the transponder and every air traffic controller (ATC) at the scope would have seen the plane identified by code as hijacked or indicating some kind of emergency (or if no one saw it, it would have been on record.) The transponder was turned off, which doesn't identify the aircraft to the ATC at all, something a commercial aircraft would never do.


----------



## cland72 (Apr 2, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> That transponder is key; even if the entire plane wasn't responding to input, the pilot could have switched the transponder and every air traffic controller (ATC) at the scope would have seen the plane identified by code as hijacked or indicating some kind of emergency (or if no one saw it, it would have been on record.) The transponder was turned off, which doesn't identify the aircraft to the ATC at all, something a commercial aircraft would never do.



Based on this, can we assume that one of the pilots intentionally took the plane off course (i.e., hijacked)? And, for one pilot to do it without the others being involved would be unlikely because the others would have to be incapacitated first, which isn't very feasible.

Am I on the right track?


----------



## RetroTechie (Apr 2, 2014)

Even _if_ transponders were switched off without co-pilot(s) noticing, with other systems in working order the plane would have continued to its destination and landed, right?

If it were an emergency, multiple-system simultaneous failure, could it _possibly_ have been so bad that the plain flew on for hours, but no mayday (of any kind) was managed to be sent?

Therefore I think the *only* logical (or even feasible) explanation is malicious intent. One way or the other. Which (given that plane is still missing and no demands have been made) must have turned bad, and ended up in the drink somewhere.

I hope they locate a 'blackbox ping' or whatever before those batteries run out (3-4 weeks or so?). When it's very deep but you know where, a salvage effort can be started. But without any clue to its location, you'd have vast stretches of ocean floor to search.  And perhaps a way to prevent repeats, that we can't apply since we don't know what happended in _this_ case.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 2, 2014)

cland72 said:


> Based on this, can we assume that one of the pilots intentionally took the plane off course (i.e., hijacked)? And, for one pilot to do it without the others being involved would be unlikely because the others would have to be incapacitated first, which isn't very feasible.



The only other competing theory is a technical breakdown of some kind that disallowed all communication/identification and control aside from level flight, which has never been seen before. 

And don't forget the 9/11 cockpit door - all a flight crew member would have to do is send the other officer out and then close and double lock the door, now the cockpit is sealed.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 2, 2014)

Time to pack it in looking now,it is costing millions.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 2, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Time to pack it in looking now,it is costing millions.



What if the plane landed, and will be making its way toward a skyscraper sometime in the near future? What will be the cost in human suffering and damage?

Perhaps it's too soon to stop looking.

~ Chance


----------



## ven (Apr 2, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Time to pack it in looking now,it is costing millions.




I am sure the relatives may not agree with that,i am sure the airline in question would not get away with it even if they did want to stop searching,pressure would be"even more" immense,not to mention the airline would fold imho too.........


----------



## cland72 (Apr 2, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Time to pack it in looking now,it is costing millions.



Bro, have you looked at how much these countries (US, UK, China, AUS) spend annually? A few million is a drop in the bucket - that's the least of their worries.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 5, 2014)

A Chinese search ship has detected a radio pulse on the frequency the black box beacon uses, if it's from the plane, that means they're within four square miles of the box.


----------



## inetdog (Apr 5, 2014)

I thought that the box emitted an acoustic ping pulse for underwater detection. A radio pulse would only be good if the black box were above water.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 5, 2014)

inetdog said:


> I thought that the box emitted an acoustic ping pulse for underwater detection. A radio pulse would only be good if the black box were above water.



Pretty sure it's an acoustic ping as well, but there's not much info coming up on what the mechanism is (aside from 37.5 kHz.)

Old search areas, today's search area, red dot is ping location, some unfavorable underwater terrain there:







The ping is only 55 km from Inmarsat's predicted Southern arc line:


----------



## orbital (Apr 6, 2014)

+

So when the data recorder is found, who gets to analyze it first?

Malaysia just seems to be a little *shaky* on this whole situation
...can't have the data go  in the wrong hands


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 6, 2014)

orbital said:


> So when the data recorder is found, who gets to analyze it first?



Malaysia has handed the lead of the investigation to Australia, as they don't have comparable resources. 

The Chinese "ship" and equipment that found the signal was one of these:


----------



## kwak (Apr 6, 2014)

dc38 said:


> I still think it was a satellite hijacking...the lack of evidence, the relative "eagerness" by officials to conclude that the plane is lost, inconclusive wide scale searches, instantaneous loss of signal?



It is not physically possible to remotely hijack a 777. 
Even IF it was possible every system has a mechanical backup that overrides the fly-by-wire system.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 6, 2014)

kwak said:


> It is not physically possible to remotely hijack a 777.
> Even IF it was possible every system has a mechanical backup that overrides the fly-by-wire system.



I doubt you are correct on this i really do.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 6, 2014)

News conference: They've heard the black box signal consistently for over two hours, this could be it..


----------



## RIX TUX (Apr 6, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Malaysia has handed the lead of the investigation to Australia, as they don't have comparable resources.
> 
> The Chinese "ship" and equipment that found the signal was one of these:



the Chinese team has equipment with English writing on it? c'mon


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 6, 2014)

RIX TUX said:


> the Chinese team has equipment with English writing on it? c'mon



Quality Teledyne Benthos equipment, means there aren't any Chinese underwater listening equipment manufacturers. The bigger question is why a dinghy had a reporter on it..


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Apr 7, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> The bigger question is why a dinghy had a reporter on it..



Most likely because, just for covering the story, the reporter did not like swimming in the middle of the ocean???


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 7, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Quality Teledyne Benthos equipment, means there aren't any Chinese underwater listening equipment manufacturers. The bigger question is why a dinghy had a reporter on it..




Why is it a big question? Reporters go where the stories are.


----------



## nbp (Apr 7, 2014)

A tiny boat wanders out in a giant search area, puts a listening device with a search radius of a mile in the water and finds the ping almost immediately? I will believe it when they have pics of the wreckage.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 7, 2014)

Whether or not they are telling the truth, I don't put much faith into the Chinese footage you see on TV. Look closely at the clips they show next time you see it; the personnel and scenes look staged. Fake smirks on their face like they're trying not to smile, "action" shots like you see in stock photography, etc. Putting on a show. Again, I'm NOT saying they're liars - just also focusing on publicity without showing the real behind-the-scenes stuff.


----------



## orbital (Apr 7, 2014)

+

45 years ago we put a man on the moon.
To say we only have the technology for 30 days of ping signal is incredible to me.

Maybe it's the crybabies complaining about lithium batteries


----------



## Steve K (Apr 7, 2014)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> 45 years ago we put a man on the moon.
> To say we only have the technology for 30 days of ping signal is incredible to me.
> ...



it's not always about the state of the technology. Sometimes it is about cost vs. benefit. 
They could easily have enough batteries to be able to ping for a year, but at what cost and what benefit? How often does it take 30 days to find a plane?

It would be interesting to hear what was done to protect the FDR and CVR from potential damage from its own battery. Does a burning lithium battery burn hotter than jet fuel?


----------



## orbital (Apr 7, 2014)

^

technology was the wrong word in my post,, obviously there could by 10X the Ah


Maybe it's me, 
but it seems every possible vulnerability on a modern jet was stacked against* flight 370 


*or exploited


----------



## Steve K (Apr 7, 2014)

I spent a number of years in the aviation industry, but it was 20 years ago. I had the impression at the time that commercial aircraft were equipped with redundant systems, but that sometimes just meant that they didn't feel bad about flying with one of the redundant portions non-functional. Combine this with the modern practice of having aircraft maintenance done in the cheapest country possible, with the cheapest labor possible, and you sometimes wonder why more stuff doesn't happen.

Add in the issue of counterfeit aircraft parts, and the odds of bad stuff happening increases.

There is also the matter that most aircraft accidents are not simple things. Planes don't usually go down because one thing failed. The usual scenario is that event A occurred, which would have been fine except that event B happened shortly before that, and even that would have been fine if event C hadn't happened just before that. I've seen this myself in planes that didn't crash, but that I ended up spending three days troubleshooting and replacing parts and wiring. 

I don't see a need for a conspiracy or any of that stuff. Things break, and things break in very odd, unpredictable ways. All of the testing that goes into an aircraft or other complex product just catches the obvious stuff. The sneaky failure modes can take years and years to show up. Sometimes it is because a component supplier made a small change to how they make their part. Sometimes it is because the guys maintaining the aircraft start getting too clever about how they do the work (and I'm thinking of the DC-10 crash(es?) upon takeoff due to mishandling of the engine pylons when changing engines. This must be 25 or 30 year ago). I've been a practicing engineer for nearly 30 years, and I've seen this stuff, on a smaller scale, the whole time.

edit: Wikipedia has an entry on the DC-10 crash that I was thinking of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191


----------



## f22shift (Apr 8, 2014)

Steve K said:


> edit: Wikipedia has an entry on the DC-10 crash that I was thinking of...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191



that's an interesting read. sometimes it's just a collection of bad events that can lead to something catastrophic. 

technology,
i always feel that each country are unwilling to reveal actually what they tech is capable of. 

on china,
their military is funny. i remember when they used graphically enhanced Top Gun footage for their military video.


----------



## mattheww50 (Apr 8, 2014)

orbital said:


> ^
> 
> technology was the wrong word in my post,, obviously there could by 10X the Ah
> 
> ...



When you see something that seems to fall through so many holes as MH370 fell through, you have to wonder if it really was an accident. The odds on all of these things happening independently are tiny, but not zero (We used to say about as likely as 2 747;'s colliding on the runway, and then it actually happened). Yes, most accidents are a result of a confluence of problems/failures because most single point catastrophic failures are designed out of commercial aircraft. I personally doubt that MH370 was an accident in the traditional sense. 

My other observation is that things that don't make any sense, usually don't make any sense because you don't really understand them. Invariable the ultimate understanding in such circumstances is a very unpleasant surprise. That's pretty much where we are MH370. Nothing makes any sense, when we finally do understand it, it is going be a very unpleasant surprise.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 8, 2014)

There just isn't any way around the transponder being turned off and the VHF/comm radio working; I can come up with feasible mechanical scenarios that would cause a plane to drift off for hours (cockpit oxygen bottle explodes, crew killed, door locked..) but the fact is, the transponder was turned off 12 minutes before the routine and unremarkable "good night" message (from the normally-functioning VHF,) no problems reported..


----------



## cland72 (Apr 8, 2014)

What will the black box tell us exactly? I know I'm being lazy and could search google, but please indulge me as I think there are guys here who are very knowledgeable on the topic.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 8, 2014)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> 45 years ago we put a man on the moon.
> To say we only have the technology for 30 days of ping signal is incredible to me.
> ...




The moon landings were done in a studio in my opinion that is.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 8, 2014)

cland72 said:


> What will the black box tell us exactly? I know I'm being lazy and could search google, but please indulge me as I think there are guys here who are very knowledgeable on the topic.



There are two black boxes, one records only about 30 minutes of transmissions and ambient cockpit sound, the other records many hours of all flight data, including heading/altitude, inputs, alarms, etc. There is also the possibility of the solid state media in the passengers' cell phones.


----------



## Launch Mini (Apr 10, 2014)

A friend sent me a convoluted conspiracy theory. Had some interesting points.
One in particular was...
Why are the Chinese so interested in finding the plane and committing so many resources? Only because of the passengers on board?


----------



## markr6 (Apr 10, 2014)

Launch Mini said:


> A friend sent me a convoluted conspiracy theory. Had some interesting points.
> One in particular was...
> Why are the Chinese so interested in finding the plane and committing so many resources? Only because of the passengers on board?



Hmm, I assumed they were just being very kind and compassionate...but I guess you never know for sure. Or just human nature to be curious and want to find it first just to say you did.


----------



## HarryN (Apr 10, 2014)

Launch Mini said:


> A friend sent me a convoluted conspiracy theory. Had some interesting points.
> One in particular was...
> Why are the Chinese so interested in finding the plane and committing so many resources? Only because of the passengers on board?



I suspect that this is at least partially cultural. Similar to many countries, Chinese citizens don't completely trust the government when someone / something "goes missing". 

In countries with strong paternalistic government approaches (vs. ones with more emphasis on self-dependency) then it is natural to hold whatever government is in charge to a higher standard about really "being in charge / responsible for everything".

In both cases, the only recourse people have is to blame the government for whatever is wrong, and threaten social disruption. There is nothing more frightening to a government official than a group of unhappy mothers. This is true in pretty much any society.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 10, 2014)

Why yes, of course, kind and compassionate. Always the first thing that comes to mind when considering the Chinese Government. Tiananmen Square, one child per family, Taiwan.....

~ Chance


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 10, 2014)

If they are so sure it is there mark it with a buoy and label it as a grave.This prolonged coming and going must make being a loved one a real nightmare.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 10, 2014)

Launch Mini said:


> Why are the Chinese so interested in finding the plane and committing so many resources? Only because of the passengers on board?



Yes, without looking up the precise number, there were a significant number of Chinese persons on board. They have a large and vibrant media that is very nationalist, so they want constant updates on how well their team is doing. 



Chauncey Gardiner said:


> considering the Chinese Government. Tiananmen Square



Chinese students aren't taught about Tiananmen Square, the event does not exist in Chinese history.


----------



## Launch Mini (Apr 10, 2014)

Or, back to conspiracy theories. Was there some key information/hardware ( possibly scientists with the hardware), that was being delivered on a commercial aircraft, that they want to recover before others find out what they were up to?


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 10, 2014)

Launch Mini said:


> Or, back to conspiracy theories. Was there some key information/hardware ( possibly scientists with the hardware), that was being delivered on a commercial aircraft, that they want to recover before others find out what they were up to?



That theory usually revolves around what took the plane down; some sort of secret or illicit chemicals in the hold that no one was expecting that went off or gassed somehow. Still doesn't explain turning off the transponder and then reporting everything fine later. 

The Chinese media really is wall-to-wall invested in the whole story in the same vein that CNN is, more so in fact; that's why I brought up the reporter on the dinghy earlier - it's only somewhat odd that a reporter would be out on a tiny boat as opposed to an actual ship with accommodations, but the bigger issue was that they reported the ping they found before notifying the international team, which they have now been warned against doing.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2014)

More info on the cockpit voice recorder: Current CVRs record at least two hours, however it can be turned off; pilots are instructed to turn off the CVR after a significant event to ensure the audio data can be retrieved by ground crew.

And according to more accurate timelines, the transponder was turned off two minutes _after_ the "good night" transmission, so we're back to the possibility of some sort of cockpit disaster..


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 11, 2014)

My money is on a mass mid air abduction. My guess, a Giant mysterious flying black triangle (lenticular aerodyne) being operated by an unknown superpower! Just a guess!


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2014)

Evidence from the Malaysian criminal investigation confirms that the co-pilot's cell phone did complete a handshake with a tower in Penang, on the western extreme of Malaysia, which means it was in range and under 10,000 feet at the time.


----------



## mattheww50 (Apr 12, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Evidence from the Malaysian criminal investigation confirms that the co-pilot's cell phone did complete a handshake with a tower in Penang, on the western extreme of Malaysia, which means it was in range and under 10,000 feet at the time.



Rubbish and more misinformation.

There is absolutely nothing that requires a cell phone be below 10,000 feet to handshake with a tower. If it is a GSM phone, all that you know for sure is that it was within the range of the timing advance, if the handshake was successful, which is 35km from the tower. I have personally seen GSM phones handshake at well in excess of 10,000 feet and in some special circustances at distances well beyond 35km (although those circumstances are unlikely in Malaysia). I have also seen the BTS (but been unable to complete the handshake) at distances far in excess of 35km. If it is a CDMA phone, there are no timing limits, so the distance from the BTS is unknown. In addition CDMA phones are quite happy communicating with more than one cell tower at a time.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 12, 2014)

mattheww50 said:


> Rubbish and more misinformation.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing that requires a cell phone be below 10,000 feet to handshake with a tower. If it is a GSM phone, all that you know for sure is that it was within the range of the timing advance, if the handshake was successful, which is 35km from the tower. I have personally seen GSM phones handshake at well in excess of 10,000 feet and in some special circustances at distances well beyond 35km (although those circumstances are unlikely in Malaysia). I have also seen the BTS (but been unable to complete the handshake) at distances far in excess of 35km. If it is a CDMA phone, there are no timing limits, so the distance from the BTS is unknown. In addition CDMA phones are quite happy communicating with more than one cell tower at a time.



Well done and one up to you against the armchair scientists.


----------



## RetroTechie (Apr 12, 2014)

For the time being, I don't understand why they have so much trouble locating that "ping". It's a sound, and it has been registered, right? So put a couple of underwater sensors in the area, measure intensity/direction, and triangulate to narrow the region where the ping came from. Put a couple of sensors in that _narrowed_ search area, etc, ...., repeat until it's clear you're on top of that ping.

Sure I understand that sound can travel in non-linear ways under water, the sea is deep in the search area, and specialized equipment must be flown in from far away. But it's been weeks since the plane went missing, equipment is out there, and the physics have been hashed out in decades of nuclear-powered submarine tech, right? Remember we're talking government / military here, with massive resources available.

So what's the hold up? :thinking:


----------



## RetroTechie (Apr 12, 2014)

orbital said:


> 45 years ago we put a man on the moon.
> To say we only have the technology for 30 days of ping signal is incredible to me.
> 
> Maybe it's the crybabies complaining about lithium batteries


I doubt a blackbox (of any kind) would use current technology. The point is not to record as much as possible, or keep working as long as possible. But to record the vitals, and make *SURE* those recordings can be recovered. By surviving a crash that may have G forces peak at 100+, subsequent fire, a dip in a deep ocean, or _all_ of that! For that purpose, eg. magnetic recording media _might_ be preferable over solid state memory. And whatever old battery tech is used, might be preferable over more modern tech like lithium.

And indeed:


Steve K said:


> How often does it take 30 days to find a plane?


'nuff said.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 12, 2014)

mattheww50 said:


> Rubbish and more misinformation.






mcnair55 said:


> Well done and one up to you against the armchair scientists.



Afraid not; the 10,000 ft number comes from cell tower engineers who specifically arrayed the antennas that way. I'll take their word for it.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 12, 2014)

"The Bermuda Triangle Effect?" "Abductions?" "Missing persons?"


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 12, 2014)

If it's not such an usual event...Then why in this wonderful day and age of "Big Brother gov't surveillance" can they figure out what happened! ?


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 12, 2014)

groutboy_1 said:


> If it's not such an usual event...Then why in this wonderful day and age of "Big Brother gov't surveillance" can they figure out what happened! ?



We've covered that throughout the thread, but generally speaking, [if you saw anything] to admit what you saw is to reveal what you can see. Aside from that, the Malaysian government has been extremely secretive and has only trickled out enough data to lead us to the current search area.

Search ships went back and forth over the ping area all day, so I can't imagine there's much more refining to be done.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 13, 2014)

My Money is on a Black Triangle!


----------



## HarryN (Apr 13, 2014)

groutboy_1 said:


> My money is on a mass mid air abduction. My guess, a Giant mysterious flying black triangle (lenticular aerodyne) being operated by an unknown superpower! Just a guess!



I have heard / read similar things actually. One version actually included that the plane was accidentally shot down related to territorial disputes in the region, and the black box "ping" recently picked up is a distraction from the real location.

I almost didn't post this, but decided - what the heck.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 13, 2014)

HarryN said:


> I have heard / read similar things actually. One version actually included that the plane was accidentally shot down related to territorial disputes in the region, and the black box "ping" recently picked up is a distraction from the real location.
> 
> I almost didn't post this, but decided - what the heck.



I think it is on the ground somewhere or it has been shot down accidentally.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 13, 2014)

Inmarsat is a private business, not a government entity; I don't see what they would stand to gain from making up a story about 6+ hours of extra flight (corroborated by the fact that both black box ping signals are within 55km of where the Southern Arc estimated them to be.)


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 13, 2014)

The Bluefin submersible drone will dive today, so scanning of the ocean floor is about to begin.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 14, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> The Bluefin submersible drone will dive today, so scanning of the ocean floor is about to begin.




You are really enjoying this,i presume you must be in this industry somewhere.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 14, 2014)

Maybe they find this!


----------



## orbital (Apr 14, 2014)

.



Relax mcnair55, you do realize you're not bringing anything to the table.


_______________________________________________________________________


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 14, 2014)

orbital said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He does tend to bring that darn Anorak everywhere, maybe he could put it on the table?


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 14, 2014)

orbital said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Chill chap only asked a question. :nana:


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 14, 2014)

Prior to the 9/11 inside job, commercial aviation had the ability of remote ground override. Lufthansa grounded their fleet to remove that ability [that they didn't contract for]
So it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that the US remotely flew the plane to Diego Garcia. [It is pretty easy to land the plane, but you have to conceal it once you do. I thought this is what excluded the Andaman Islands. The NSA/NRO aren't the only ones with good geospatial reconnaissance tools] and the flight simulator of the captain had the approach for the runway on that atoll, a nice failsafe.

Now, I think there was too much awareness of this crime, by the public at large, but more so by other intelligence agencies. So an abort was called, the plane gassed up [if the wreckage is ever recovered: we will see if the FDR data is entirely blank, or false data is written to it] and flew to the 'expected' impact site, and nose dived straight into the ocean.

Good for the world [identical 777 in an Israeli hanger, really?], bad for the passengers. And speaking of passengers, weren't there four high level semiconductor engineers for Freescale [wasn't that a spinoff/spinout from Motorola IIRC] who held some nice patents, and didn't sell out to the powers that be...

and this show was a nice distraction from the US/EU coup of Ukraine, the Russians moving in to protect their assets, while the controlled 'press' tells those that still get their misinfo from them, that the Russians "invaded".


----------



## Steve K (Apr 14, 2014)

MichaelW said:


> Prior to the 9/11 inside job, commercial aviation had the ability of remote ground override. Lufthansa grounded their fleet to remove that ability [that they didn't contract for]
> So it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that the US remotely flew the plane to Diego Garcia. [It is pretty easy to land the plane, but you have to conceal it once you do. I thought this is what excluded the Andaman Islands. The NSA/NRO aren't the only ones with good geospatial reconnaissance tools] and the flight simulator of the captain had the approach for the runway on that atoll, a nice failsafe.
> 
> Now, I think there was too much awareness of this crime, by the public at large, but more so by other intelligence agencies. So an abort was called, the plane gassed up [if the wreckage is ever recovered: we will see if the FDR data is entirely blank, or false data is written to it] and flew to the 'expected' impact site, and nose dived straight into the ocean.
> ...



just to see if I'm following this correctly.... 
The US flew the plane to Diego Garcia, landed successfully, noticed that the world noticed that the plane was gone, got nervous about it, loaded everyone back on the plane, flew it out to the ocean, and crashed it into the water?

The obvious question is "why?" to almost every part of this theory. 

As far as the business about Freescale, I don't know if there is such a thing as a high level engineer. Technical skills aren't normally rewarded. 
Patents aren't normally held by the inventor either... the company owns the patents and the engineer gets a token monetary reward. 
And as far as Freescale holding some special technology or patent?? Maybe, but you wouldn't guess it from the products they sell or their position in the industry. Motorola used to make some good processors, but my experience has not been that good. 
Overall, Motorola has largely disappeared. Their discrete semiconductors were spun off into OnSemi, which has been okay, but nothing special. The phone business got sold off to Google, who did keep a lot of the patents and then spit out the rest. I think their original mobile radio business is still operating as Motorola, which is good. A shame to see such a successful business fall apart, though. (a bit off topic, I suppose)


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 14, 2014)

No, they wouldn't necessarily need to load the passengers back on. There is a torture site at D.G. and there is plenty of Indian Ocean for 'disposal' [shades of Dexter?]
Call them highly educated, and highly experienced then. 
The cabal doesn't have to achieve all their goals in one action for it to be regarded as a success. 

Forget the timeline, Lufthansa did their housekeeping after 9/11.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 14, 2014)

Getting better by the day this thread,i love conspiracy theories and so far two of the 3 countries in the triangle of doom are mentioned.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve K said:


> just to see if I'm following this correctly....
> The US flew the plane to Diego Garcia, landed successfully, noticed that the world noticed that the plane was gone, got nervous about it, loaded everyone back on the plane, flew it out to the ocean, and crashed it into the water?
> 
> The obvious question is "why?" to almost every part of this theory.



Gee Steve, When you put it like that, you make it sound silly. Good job! :thumbsup:

Why, indeed? Perhaps too much weed.

~ Chance


----------



## Launch Mini (Apr 14, 2014)

Do you all want me to cut & paste the conspiracy theory someone emailed me? Far fetched as it may be?


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 14, 2014)

Launch Mini said:


> Do you all want me to cut & paste the conspiracy theory someone emailed me? Far fetched as it may be?



Good idea i am up for it.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 14, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Getting better by the day this thread,i love conspiracy theories



I was trying to keep the thread purely factual since conspiracy theories don't always go over well in news threads, but if you're all interested in going there, you're missing the granddaddy of the 370 conspiracies - the theory that pilot Shah turned everything off, turned the plane, then contacted the Malaysian government by cell phone and demanded the release of Anwar Ibrahim; the negotiations didn't go well and so Shah just pointed the plane south, knowing there was no way to track him in that region of the globe. That's why the Malaysian government has been so secretive about the flight data.

(It fits all the facts except for the fact that Ibrahim was released prior to the flight..)



mcnair55 said:


> You are really enjoying this,i presume you must be in this industry somewhere.



No, just a news junkie with a criminal investigation background; this incident has proven a tough nut to crack, so I'm watching closely to see how it unfolds. All it will take is for a single passenger to have written something down..


----------



## Steve K (Apr 14, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> ..... All it will take is for a single passenger to have written something down..



with waterproof ink??

Obviously, I hope that the cause is found and if it is something other than human malevolence, we can learn from it and prevent future incidents. 

It does make you wonder what evidence of the cause can/will survive. Notes scribbled on paper?? How well does ink hold up when submerged extensively?
Flash memory in cell phones or cameras? Maybe... as long as the water doesn't get into the semiconductor packaging and cause corrosion. The plastic packaging on the flash memory is barely designed to keep out humid air. I don't have much faith that it will survive a month or two in the ocean.
Maybe on a hard drive on a laptop??? At least those are sealed pretty well. 

It may be a stretch, but I'd almost bet that the most durable medium would be lipstick on glass or plastic. That greasy stuff ought to last until some micro-organism digests it, shouldn't it?


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 14, 2014)

Steve K said:


> with waterproof ink??



Japan flight 123 had a passenger's note explain what happened, though that one went into the side of a mountain. Word has it odds are above average for underwater flash memory that is intact, so we shall see..


----------



## nbp (Apr 14, 2014)

So the pinger listening devices are done since the black box batteries are dead, and the surface search is nearly complete too. It sounds like they are now relying on the autonomous sub Bluefin-21 to create hi-res 3D maps of the seabed in an effort to spot the wreckage. Sounds like this could take quite a while...assuming it is in the ocean...and they are even looking in the right area based on the sounds they heard. I hope this works. :candle:

As an aside, does anyone else find the ocean creepy? The thought of crashing into the ocean and surviving on a piece of wreckage or being stranded by a shipwreck in the middle of the ocean alone is perhaps the most horrifying place I can imagine. Despite its beauty, the vastness and depth of it, and absolute aloneness, along with its violence - storms, frigid cold, and predators - make it terrifying. I cannot imagine a worse situation than being stuck floating alone thousands of miles from land.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 14, 2014)

Yeah, the stories of people being stranded on islands are scary enough, I'll always love the beach though. 

And Bluefin is pretty impressive, if it runs across anything, it'll be hard to miss. A sample image of a sunken ship:


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 15, 2014)

nbp said:


> As an aside, does anyone else find the ocean creepy? The thought of crashing into the ocean and surviving on a piece of wreckage or being stranded by a shipwreck in the middle of the ocean alone is perhaps the most horrifying place I can imagine. Despite its beauty, the vastness and depth of it, and absolute aloneness, along with its violence - storms, frigid cold, and predators - make it terrifying. I cannot imagine a worse situation than being stuck floating alone thousands of miles from land.



Absolutely! Search big waves on youtube. Terrifying. For me, what's even worse, high piers especially during low-tide. Falling into the dark water. Nothing to hold onto but the pilings covered by crustaceans waiting to tear the skin from your body as the waves pound over you. Then as you start to bleed......waiting for whatever that is sure to attract. :help:

~ Chance


----------



## Launch Mini (Apr 15, 2014)

Here is the email a friend sent me..


Israel's views of missing
MH 370 - a conspiracy theory.




Have you heard of this conspiracy theory re the disappearance of MH
370? The story goes like this:


Remainder of story removed as copyright violation and CPF rules. To read the copy, whether the original or not, read the Facebook entry here. - Empath


----------



## nbp (Apr 15, 2014)

Interesting read for sure.


----------



## thedoc007 (Apr 15, 2014)

Launch Mini said:


> Don't believe the story?



Definitely not. Might make a good novel, but that is pure fantasy. Spreading around stuff like this is a colossal waste of time...better to say nothing than to forward material full of errors and assumptions.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 15, 2014)

It is an interesting story, if only to see how well the author can mold the story to fit the known facts and embrace the current phobias and popular themes. 

I'm still struggling to figure out why you would take equipment snagged in Afganistan and transport it to China via Malaysia. Isn't the land route from Afganistan to China quite direct??

I'm also having trouble following the part where America detects that the stuff is on the plane, and then ... uses remote control to take get the plane. Seems like it would be easier just have the plane detained in Malaysia and take the stuff off of the aircraft.

Overall, it does remind me of an action movie... lots of fun stuff going on, but you keep wondering why the hero is going through such complicated schemes when the objective could have been accomplished much easier.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 15, 2014)

thedoc007 said:


> Definitely not. Might make a good novel, but that is pure fantasy. Spreading around stuff like this is a colossal waste of time...better to say nothing than to forward material full of errors and assumptions.




Was a good read and will make a good film.The only thing is the US&A & Russians never win against the Afghans,they run rings around them.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 15, 2014)

I still think it's more along these lines!


----------



## cland72 (Apr 15, 2014)

nbp said:


> As an aside, does anyone else find the ocean creepy? The thought of crashing into the ocean and surviving on a piece of wreckage or being stranded by a shipwreck in the middle of the ocean alone is perhaps the most horrifying place I can imagine. Despite its beauty, the vastness and depth of it, and absolute aloneness, along with its violence - storms, frigid cold, and predators - make it terrifying. I cannot imagine a worse situation than being stuck floating alone thousands of miles from land.



I completely agree. Worst nightmare imaginable.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 15, 2014)

nbp said:


> As an aside, does anyone else find the ocean creepy? The thought of crashing into the ocean and surviving on a piece of wreckage or being stranded by a shipwreck in the middle of the ocean alone is perhaps the most horrifying place I can imagine. Despite its beauty, the vastness and depth of it, and absolute aloneness, along with its violence - storms, frigid cold, and predators - make it terrifying. I cannot imagine a worse situation than being stuck floating alone thousands of miles from land.



that reminds me of a number of incidents during WWII where sailors or aircrew were left floating on the ocean. I'm not sure if it helps having other stranded and probably injured people with you or not.

Is it better or worse than other scenarios?? To Be Determined, I suppose. Being stuck in arctic conditions or in the middle of the desert wouldn't be a huge improvement. Not sure about being stuck in a jungle... that might depend on the details.
At least when you are on land, you could get some sleep without worrying about drowning when you let go of that piece of wreckage.


----------



## nbp (Apr 15, 2014)

I think it is always better having other people with you, even if the situation sucks. We are "pack animals" and don't tend to do well when isolated for extended periods of time.  In my personal experience, having someone around can really help to ease fear and anxiety, even if they aren't able to directly help you. 

I agree that the Arctic or desert or jungle would indeed be terrifying as well, but I think there numerous factors that make them more tolerable. First and foremost, I am a land creature! At least all those are my "native territory"... I have a chance at self rescue, and I have at least SOME resources. I can walk and move about, find or capture food, find water, create fire and shelter, create weapons and tools, signal for help, etc. These increase the odds of survival and are huge morale boosters. And there is a chance that other humans will pass in proximity to me; I got there somehow, maybe they will too. People survive an all kinds of harsh environments. 

All those things become exponentially more difficult in the ocean, especially if you are not on a stocked life boat but rather a flimsy raft or piece of wreckage. Food is hard to get, freshwater is hard to get, shelter from sun and storm is hard to get, transporting yourself in any direction other than the one the current is taking you is near impossible, navigating is very difficult, you are at the mercy of violent waves and winds, you have no option but to stay on your flotation device or you will certainly drown and/or become dinner, and the odds of being stumbled upon by human rescuers is admittedly low (as is evidenced by the low productivity of this MH370 SAR mission going on for more than a month). 

When surrounded by absolutely nothing but incredibly empty expanses of ocean and little you can do to improve your situation, the hopelessness and loneliness of the circumstances seem unbearable. I cannot fathom the fear of floating alone in the dark in the middle of the ocean, just inches between you and the inky blackness of the sea. The fear becomes paralyzing. And as soon as you crack, you're dead.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 17, 2014)

nbp said:


> I think it is always better having other people with you, even if the situation sucks. We are "pack animals" and don't tend to do well when isolated for extended periods of time.  In my personal experience, having someone around can really help to ease fear and anxiety, even if they aren't able to directly help you.
> 
> I agree that the Arctic or desert or jungle would indeed be terrifying as well, but I think there numerous factors that make them more tolerable. First and foremost, I am a land creature! At least all those are my "native territory"... I have a chance at self rescue, and I have at least SOME resources. I can walk and move about, find or capture food, find water, create fire and shelter, create weapons and tools, signal for help, etc. These increase the odds of survival and are huge morale boosters. And there is a chance that other humans will pass in proximity to me; I got there somehow, maybe they will too. People survive an all kinds of harsh environments.
> 
> ...



"Nope, I WOULD rather chance it alone -(along with Wilson...WILSON!!!)-Than have to spend time with various groups of unknown @$$-Wholes, who have watched to many episodes of Survivor!!! You Know, some morons Hollwood version of* Lord of the Flies!* No Thanks! Where's Wilson.....WILSON!!!!"


----------



## Steve K (Apr 17, 2014)

wandering further OT: I was always amazed at how Tom Hanks could make me care about the fate of a volley ball.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 17, 2014)

The ice skate dentistry bothered me! "Serious ouch!"


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 17, 2014)

"WILSON!!!! DON'T LEAVE ME!!!"


----------



## kwak (Apr 18, 2014)

MichaelW said:


> Prior to the 9/11 inside job, commercial aviation had the ability of remote ground override. Lufthansa grounded their fleet to remove that ability [that they didn't contract for]
> So it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that the US remotely flew the plane to Diego Garcia. [It is pretty easy to land the plane, but you have to conceal it once you do. I thought this is what excluded the Andaman Islands. The NSA/NRO aren't the only ones with good geospatial reconnaissance tools] and the flight simulator of the captain had the approach for the runway on that atoll, a nice failsafe.



Absolutely rubbish

Again unless the entire control and navigations system were completely replaced there is absolutely no way you cab remotely control a commercial aircraft.

Never has been and there never will be.

As per usual with these conspiracy theory crazies they take a snippet of something that seemed to be true for while then expand and exaggerate it beyond the truth until it fits their crazy "theory"

There was a security consultant called Hugo Teso who claimed at the Hack in the Box conference he had "found a vulnerability in airplane flight computers that could be exploited using only an Android smartphone app, a radio transmitter and flight management software he purchased on eBay"

The FAA responded with:
“The FAA is aware that a German information technology consultant has alleged he has detected a security issue with the Honeywell NZ-2000 Flight Management System (FMS) using only a desktop computer.

The FAA has determined that the hacking technique described during a recent computer security conference does not pose a flight safety concern because it does not work on certified flight hardware.

The described technique cannot engage or control the aircraft’s autopilot system using the FMS or prevent a pilot from overriding the autopilot.

Therefore, a hacker cannot obtain ‘full control of an aircraft,’ as the technology consultant has claimed,” 

Even IF the system was completely rebuilt to be remote controlled don't you think the pilots would realise something was amiss and activate the manual override.


----------



## dc38 (Apr 18, 2014)

kwak said:


> Absolutely rubbish
> 
> Again unless the entire control and navigations system were completely replaced there is absolutely no way you cab remotely control a commercial aircraft.
> 
> ...



I take it that you must have professional experience with aerospace engineering. What do you mean by manual override? Do you mean the flight controls that are now mostly electronically controlled? Think about a gaming wheel with high torque motors for force feedback for a minute, and tell me that the technology cannot be retrofitted to a plane's "manual" joystick.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 18, 2014)

if you wanted to take control of the airplane remotely, you wouldn't do it by adding motors to move the stick, rudder pedals, and throttle (and every other thing that the pilot can touch). 

The correct way is to feed new commands into the flight control computers. The computer is what controls the hydraulics that move the flight controls. (edit: oops.. that should be "move the flight control surfaces", as in the ailerons, rudder, and elevators) The stick, rudder, throttle, etc. aren't connected to the hydraulics (except maybe as an emergency backup system?). The stick, rudder, throttle, etc. are electronic and connected to the flight control computers by means of redundant serial data buses, typically. 

Sending new messages over the serial data buses shouldn't be that hard, but you'd probably have to disconnect the devices that normally send the messages. There's also the issue of needing some antenna to receive commands with. Whatever electronics that would have to be added by a would-be hijacker would need to be concealed, so they would need an external antenna. This would require tapping into an existing antenna's coax cable, I would imagine.

Having said all of that, there is an expectation that all electronics will fail sometime, so there are normally multiple ways to disconnect the auto-pilot. When I used to work on military aircraft, there were probably a dozen ways to disconnect the auto-pilot. The simplest way was to just touch the joystick.. it had strain gauges in it that could sense force applied to it, and that would disconnect the auto-pilot.


----------



## kwak (Apr 18, 2014)

dc38 said:


> I take it that you must have professional experience with aerospace engineering. What do you mean by manual override? Do you mean the flight controls that are now mostly electronically controlled? Think about a gaming wheel with high torque motors for force feedback for a minute, and tell me that the technology cannot be retrofitted to a plane's "manual" joystick.



As Steve said the 777 is what people commonly term fly by wire, this means most of the controls are electronically controlled rather than mechanically.

I'm not arguing that it would be possible to convert a plane to remotely control it, of course that would be possible.
Remotely controlled planes are used for testing of weapons systems, i'm not talking drones here i'm talking about old fighter jets that are reworked to be controlled remotely.

For a civil aviation craft it would require extensive reworking of ALL the planes systems, you'd have to completely remove all the planes avionics and replace them with your own, this is an extremely tine and man power consuming task even for professionals.
Have in mind that civil aviation planes have at least 1 redundant system for everything, so you would need to have access to all the hardware, completely reconfigure the lanes hardware, replace then reprogram the entire avionics system, even for large companies with hundreds of trained experienced staff this is a massive undertaking.

Even then, the second the pilots went to taxi for take off they'd realise instantly they were not in control of the craft, they'd radio the control tower to inform them.

Lets say this team of experienced trained avionics experts had also disabled the radio, what about the families or pilots using their mobile phones, they'd still be on the ground when they realised they have no control on the plane.

What about external antennas, don't you think someone would notice?
Drones are usually controlled by using defence satellites, have these "hackers" also hacked into the MOD systems and satellites?
If so, if their intention was to cause harm surely redirecting a drone with hellfire ordinance would make a bolder "statement" 

Some on that plane flew it on that course.

One hypothesis would be that they meant to do harm, someone on the plane intentionally diverted the plane to do hard to themselves and passengers.

Another option is that the pilot/pilots were confused and that's why they redirected the flight.
There have been a few problems with wiring/batteries with the 777 it's possible this could cause de-pressurisation which at that sort of altitude would render the pilots and passengers unconscious extremely quickly.
Do a search for Helios Flight 522 to give you some idea of how confusing and difficult a de-pressurisation event can be at altitude.

That could explain why the plane turned around and dropped altitude, pilots are usually told to head towards the nearest airport if they experience problems, but IF the pilot doesn't see it as a major problem they will generally prefer to land at a airport they know well.
I've not seen any data on a KNOWN flight path but it's possible the pilots were confused from lack of oxygen turned the plane around, activated the autopilot then unfortunately never woke up again.

I find it odd that no one communicated with the outside world, during the long flight.
Both the passengers and pilots have a separate oxygen supply, but it's limited and if de-pressurisation occurred at 11,000m then the effects it would take on a person would take seconds.

At the min we know nothing, it's all 100% conjecture.
I do know absolutely without a doubt you cannot control a civil aviation craft remotely unless you carry out months of extremely specialist work.


----------



## orbital (Apr 18, 2014)

+

Knock out the passengers & crew with a gas agent*, then set the plane to fly into oblivion

..literally to where it can't be seen, tracked or found


_*good night_


________________________________________________________.......... .. .


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 18, 2014)

I think someone's been watching the movie "Eagle Eye" too many times!


----------



## kwak (Apr 18, 2014)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> Knock out the passengers & crew with a gas agent*, then set the plane to fly into oblivion
> 
> ...





What gas agent?
Where do they get it from?
How do they get it on the plane?
How do they release it without becoming affected themselves, it's kinda obvious if a passenger puts on a gas mask, and where do they get the gas mask from?
How do they get off the plane?
How do they know the plane couldn't be tracked?
How did they know where it couldn't be found?
What's the motivation to having the plane not be found?
Who sponsors this?
What were/are their goals?

If we're talking realms of fantasy here you may as well say a scientists were able to draw DNA from a pterodactyl, genetically re-engineer it to be a thousand times bigger and live in outer space, then program it to grab hold of the plane and fly to Mars with it.


----------



## nbp (Apr 18, 2014)

I think you're onto something with the pterodactyl... Actually.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 18, 2014)

- Auto-pilot will refuse to do anything unless everything is nominal; having a circuit turned off or an alarm somewhere means no auto-pilot. 

- The plane will hold a heading when pointed in any given direction; evidence suggests a flight path that followed magnetic south and didn't deviate, which would imply no control input for the entire ~6 hour southern leg of the flight. This is corroborated by the lack of any particular destination in that direction, so a waypoint was almost certainly not set/followed.

- Depressurizing at cruising altitude would give all persons on the plane approximately thirty seconds of consciousness before succumbing to lack of oxygen. Add to this the fact that this was a night flight, so the passenger area was probably dark with half the passengers asleep anyway.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 18, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> - Depressurizing at cruising altitude would give all persons on the plane approximately* thirty seconds of consciousness *before succumbing to lack of oxygen. Add to this the fact that this was a night flight, so the passenger area was probably dark with half the *passengers asleep* anyway.



Thousands of people are mourning the loss of a loved one, perhaps two.......hopefully most were asleep, therefore unaware.

Thank you StarHalo, for a little bit of comfort.

~ Chance


----------



## orbital (Apr 18, 2014)

+
*
If you wanted a commercial jet to disappear & possibly never be found,, do exactly as Flight 370 did.*

Sadly this must be considered as an intentional act, with no return ever planned.
Then less questions & less laughing smilies here.

accident or negligence?, I just don't see it on 370.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 18, 2014)

Not seen much tv news in the last couple of days,anything new happened?


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 18, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Not seen much tv news in the last couple of days,anything new happened?



The Bluefin sub drone had a botched couple of starts but is now scanning away in a roughly 10x5 mi. area, which it can cover a notable fraction of daily, so we'll know within a few days if there's anything to be found in this specific area. Surface searches are still underway in a few different areas to the NE of the underwater search.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 18, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> The Bluefin sub drone had a botched couple of starts but is now scanning away in a roughly 10x5 mi. area, which it can cover a notable fraction of daily, so we'll know within a few days if there's anything to be found in this specific area. Surface searches are still underway in a few different areas to the NE of the underwater search.



Thanks much appreciated.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 18, 2014)

"You know....This almost sounds like a tv series!"


----------



## HotWire (Apr 18, 2014)

CNN reported today that the plane was equipped with 4 emergency locator transmitters designed to transmit a signal to satellites in the event of a crash or contact with water. There is no report of the transmitters being activated....


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 18, 2014)

HotWire said:


> CNN reported today that the plane was equipped with 4 emergency locator transmitters designed to transmit a signal to satellites in the event of a crash or contact with water. There is no report of the transmitters being activated....



Two in the nose and two in the tail, plus one for each emergency slide if activated. All bets are off once they're fully submerged (they go off on contact with water, however it's a radio signal so it won't travel _through_ water) or disintegrated.


----------



## thedoc007 (Apr 18, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Two in the nose and two in the tail, plus one for each emergency slide if activated. All bets are off once they're fully submerged (they go off on contact with water, however it's a radio signal so it won't travel _through_ water) or disintegrated.



And there is a good chance that they wouldn't work, in any case. That Air France flight a few years back had those same transmitters (don't know how many), and it was determined later that they never went off - in fact they were broken BEFORE anything went wrong with the flight. They are installed, but not regularly tested. As anyone who has ever worked in IT knows, if you don't test it, you can't count on it.


----------



## nbp (Apr 19, 2014)

Man, another transportation disaster with that ferry in South Korea. My sympathies to any of our Korean friends here for another great tragedy and loss of innocent lives. It looks like some 250 people, mostly kids, have likely perished in this disaster also.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 19, 2014)

nbp said:


> Man, another transportation disaster with that ferry in South Korea.



That one is straight up human error though, a chain of human errors, no mystery there. Expect arrests.


----------



## Dave D (Apr 20, 2014)

HotWire said:


> CNN reported today that the plane was equipped with 4 emergency locator transmitters designed to transmit a signal to satellites in the event of a crash or contact with water. There is no report of the transmitters being activated....



I can't imagine that the design specification was to activate on contact with water at a couple of hundred miles per hour.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 20, 2014)

Dave D said:


> I can't imagine that the design specification was to activate on contact with water at a couple of hundred miles per hour.



It happens..


----------



## mattheww50 (Apr 20, 2014)

thedoc007 said:


> And there is a good chance that they wouldn't work, in any case. That Air France flight a few years back had those same transmitters (don't know how many), and it was determined later that they never went off - in fact they were broken BEFORE anything went wrong with the flight. They are installed, but not regularly tested. As anyone who has ever worked in IT knows, if you don't test it, you can't count on it.



The history of Emergency Locator Transmitters(ELT) and Emergecny Position Indincator Radio Beacons (EPIRB)in aircraft in actual accidents is pretty dismal. Usually they have either been damaged by the impact, or incinerated by the post accident fire long before an ELT signal was likely to be picked up. EPIRB's may fare a little better because the time between activation and receipt by a sat in geosynchronous orbit is literally seconds. IN Australia at one point a few years ago out of some 43 accidents, the ELT successfully deployed in only two or three of them. Usually the impact broke the antenna cable on the ELT mounted in the tail of the aircraft. The actual history of EPIRB's which are also used in maritime applications is a lot happier than ELT history in aircraft. The shipborne EPIRB's do routinely deploy as the vessel sinks. When I flew light aircraft, we usually had a couple handheld PLB's (Personal locator Beacon, which is almost identical to an EPIRB except for battery life) as backup.

The unpleasnt reality howeer is that most accidents where the ELT has failed to operate were unsurvivable anyway (SR111, AF447). Generally the EPIRB's in the life rafts will successfully activate if the raft is deployed.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 20, 2014)

I guess it DOESN'T work when your mysteriously MIA !


----------



## nbp (Apr 20, 2014)

> *(CNN)* -- The underwater drone scanning the ocean for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 ended its eighth mission Monday, having covered about two thirds of its intended territory without finding any sign of the missing plane.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 21, 2014)

Time to file this as:


----------



## Dave D (Apr 21, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> It happens..



My money is on MH370 not being in that condition when it hit the sea!


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 21, 2014)

Personally i still think it is on the ground somewhere hidden away for future use.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 23, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Personally i still think it is on the ground somewhere hidden away for future use.



I dismissed this pretty soon after it went missing...but a tiny fraction of my imagination is now starting to entertain this. They found a piece of debris on shore south of Perth, but can't confirm what it came from.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 23, 2014)

Australia's transport chief says the debris piece is not from 370. Kind of a given when you consider the amount of trash in the ocean..


----------



## shakeym14 (Apr 23, 2014)

The latest report of the search area where the pings were coming from suggest that 90%
has now been searched and still nothing.


----------



## nbp (Apr 24, 2014)

48 days of searching and they have not found a thing. Not one scrap of the plane. I am honestly shocked at this. Satellites, planes, ships, submarine, all of it. I realize the Earth is big, but it still amazes me that it can simply disappear. We literally are no closer to knowing what happened than we were 48 days ago.


----------



## RIX TUX (Apr 24, 2014)

I think the way commercial planes are tracked will be changed after all this dust settles.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 24, 2014)

Time to search land i think for it hidden away for future use but in all honesty i expect that to be going on at the time secretly any way.


----------



## RIX TUX (Apr 24, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Time to search land i think for it hidden away for future use but in all honesty i expect that to be going on at the time secretly any way.


if it was flying over land all those cell phones on board would have been pinging


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 24, 2014)

RIX TUX said:


> if it was flying over land all those cell phones on board would have been pinging



You have no idea what was done with the cell phones,if for instance the aircraft was hijacked and let us be honest here after millions of pounds spent searching still nothing but ideas and conspiracy theories.This will make a Hollywood Blockbuster for sure and i bet the scripts are in the writing.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 25, 2014)

This is my 2nd conspiracy theory guess.....


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 25, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Personally i still think it is on the ground somewhere hidden away for future use.


We have a winner!
The last valid radar track was taking the flight west, which is how you get to Diego Garcia.
The Inmarsat data is bogus, just look who owns that corporation.

I think people are forgetting what year it is. We are living in Buck Rogers time.
Planes can be remotely flown, or can autonomously fly to pre-determined destinations (it happened four times on 9/11)


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 25, 2014)

...four times on 9-11 ...:tinfoil: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbBX6aEzEz8

~C.G.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 25, 2014)

Top 10 conspiracy theories!!!


----------



## Steve K (Apr 25, 2014)

heck, I was rooting for the Alien Abduction theory, but now that I see the "Missing Plane Found on the Moon", that's my new favorite!


----------



## degarb (Apr 26, 2014)

groutboy_1 said:


> Top 10 conspiracy theories!!!



Geez. And, I thought I was being insensitive for even thinking and considering a post requesting Sasha/Gretta/Empath to merge the Walking Dead thread with this one.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 26, 2014)

No..Another rumor...


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 26, 2014)

Just me, I guess, but I'm not seeing the humor. Got a lot of people missing. Not good. 

Bill


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Apr 26, 2014)

Read through the thread Bill, it's not just you. :candle:

~ C.G.


----------



## groutboy_1 (Apr 27, 2014)

Hmmm.....,


----------



## nbp (Apr 27, 2014)

Groutboy, if you can't be serious about this topic, please don't post in my thread. Regardless of what/if we find out what actually happened, it's not a joke and a lot of people are suffering.


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 27, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> ...four times on 9-11 ...:tinfoil: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbBX6aEzEz8
> ~C.G.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 27, 2014)

Is there any chance it is on the ground hidden away? For sure there is something very dodgy about all this, and with some of the more technically advanced nations lending a hand you would think some snippet of info would come out.


----------



## kwak (Apr 27, 2014)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Just me, I guess, but I'm not seeing the humor. Got a lot of people missing. Not good.
> 
> Bill



+1


----------



## kwak (Apr 27, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Is there any chance it is on the ground hidden away? For sure there is something very dodgy about all this, and with some of the more technically advanced nations lending a hand you would think some snippet of info would come out.



Where in the world could you land a large aircraft like this someone out of the way, where no one in say 100 mile area has any communication with the outside world?

If it's a remote area a large passenger jet will attract a LOT of attention.

Who is going to land it?
Landing a plane this size is extremely difficult even on a good runway and more importantly ILS (Instrument landing system).
ILS is a land based system that gives both lateral and a vertical signals for a planes position when landing, landing without this system is virtually impossible with a aircraft this size.

Once they've landed it what are they going to do with it?
It's not like they can strip a plane in the middle of nowhere and sell it for parts.

What about the 239 people onboard the plane, it would need a well organised and large group of people to control that amount of people, since 9/11 it's not like passengers are going to take any hijack lightly.

Final nail in the coffin for me is, how would they put out a false decoy GPS signal?
Back before the plane disappeared it was not common knowledge that the plane would ping the GPS satellite every hour, even if they did suspect this might be the case no one had written a program to crunch this raw GPS data to give a more accurate idea of the planes position.

Yet we now know roughly where the plane last pinged the GPS satellite.

Good quick assessment of what's known so far here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503141


----------



## mattheww50 (Apr 27, 2014)

GPS sats are not pinged. For users, GPS is a receive only service. The Aircaft did ping one or two Inmarsat birds. Inmarsat provides a variety of communications services, usually on/over the open sea.
As for landing anywhere, some have suggested Diego Garcia, however it is a safe bet that the Russian Keep Diego Garcia under very close suveillance, and 777 is at least a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the ground resolution of a military 'spy-in-the-sky' sat. Good luck hiding an intact 777.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 27, 2014)

kwak said:


> Where in the world could you land a large aircraft like this someone out of the way, where no one in say 100 mile area has any communication with the outside world?
> 
> If it's a remote area a large passenger jet will attract a LOT of attention.
> 
> ...



The world is a big place Mr Kwak and you can never say never. Technically equipped nations are stumped at present.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 27, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> The world is a big place Mr Kwak and you can never say never. Technically equipped nations are stumped at present.



we can't say that the aircraft absolutely isn't at a secret airport, but I think we can say that we are over 90% sure that it is at the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## mcnair55 (Apr 27, 2014)

Steve K said:


> we can't say that the aircraft absolutely isn't at a secret airport, but I think we can say that we are over 90% sure that it is at the bottom of the ocean.



To be honest chap you cannot but if you are correct they must be looking in the wrong place.


----------



## kwak (Apr 27, 2014)

mattheww50 said:


> GPS sats are not pinged. For users, GPS is a receive only service. The Aircaft did ping one or two Inmarsat birds. Inmarsat provides a variety of communications services, usually on/over the open sea.
> As for landing anywhere, some have suggested Diego Garcia, however it is a safe bet that the Russian Keep Diego Garcia under very close suveillance, and 777 is at least a couple of orders of magnitude larger than the ground resolution of a military 'spy-in-the-sky' sat. Good luck hiding an intact 777.



It sends GPS tracking data to a satellite as do many modern planes.
Unfortunately the amount of data sent means the service is extremely expensive, so it's usually only a service that's used in very remote areas.

In this case it sent the GPS data but only very limited data and only every hour or so.



mcnair55 said:


> The world is a big place Mr Kwak and you can never say never. Technically equipped nations are stumped at present.



Right now we know enough to give a very rough idea of it's location.

As it's unlikely there will be any survivors there is a good chance we will never know everything that happened and why.

We do know that:
a/ All the data from the satellite tracking gives us a rough location
b/ The ping from the "black box" has so far corroborated this data

For a lane to have landed and be stored somewhere you would have to have:
A private organisation lying about that data (GPS tracking data)
The Chinese and Australian Navy lying about the ping from the "black box"
A runway to be made in an extremely remote area without anyone noticing
The plane to fly in a area where planes like this don't usually fly and no one to notice or report it
A small army to be formed to control 239 very irate passengers and crew
Both the Pilot and co-pilot to be "in on" the plan
To some how take control of all the communication devices of all 239 people
To know exactly how to circumnavigate the various countries radar

That's a LOT of organisation and planning, and for what?
No demands have been made.
If the plane has landed on a temporary runway it won't be in a fit state to take off without a LOT of work
Even then it's unlikely it'll take off on a temporary runway anyways
No grand plot or shocking media event has occurred like in all other terrorist plots.
No demand for money or ransom has been made

So what's going to be gained?

I agree that until we know exactly where the flight came to rest there is a chance it could be anywhere.
The GPS data and black box ping point us in a rough area though so i think for it to be parked up in some remote jungle somewhere is about as likely as it is for me to go out for a date with Monica Bellucci and Jesica Alba tomorrow night


----------



## Steve K (Apr 27, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> To be honest chap you cannot but if you are correct they must be looking in the wrong place.



well, the ocean is a very large place compared to a Boeing jet, and it is very deep as well. 
It would be interesting to compare the volume of the jet to the volume of the area of the ocean being checked. 

This makes me wonder how easy it would be to detect the jet (or portions of it) even if the search parties did cross paths with it. How much actually survived contact with the water? Would the chunks that sunk to the ocean's bottom be detectable or recognizable? 

For a roughly analogous situation, I'm imagining the scenario of flying over a 1 square mile plowed field. From an altitude of 10,000 feet, drop a penny onto that 1 square mile. Now, you are assigned to walk through that field and look for that penny. You are allowed to use your eyes and your hands. You know that the penny is there, but how long will it take you to find it? It might be on the surface, or it might be a few inches below the surface. You might miss it on the first pass, and accidentally step on it and drive it further below the surface. 

My experience is mostly at the other end of the scale. I work with very small electronic components. There have been times where I was trying to solder an 0402 size resistor.. it is 0.04 x 0.02 inches in size. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-mount_technology
When one of these parts jumps out of the tweezers that I'm using to hold it, it lands on the work bench.. somewhere. With the various other debris on the bench, the part has effectively disappeared. I've never found one that was lost like this. The situation with the 777 is enormously worse.

edit: actually, finding the penny might be close to finding the 777. In terms of relative area, the area of a penny is 110 x 10^-12 square miles. 
The wingspan of a 777-200ER is 212 feet. If you assume that the area of the 777 is equivalent to a circle with a diameter of 212 feet, then it has an area of 1.27 x 10^-3 square miles. 
Figuring how large of an area of ocean to search is harder. Using the BBC web page mentioned earlier, I'm assuming an area of 1000 by 1000 miles. Drop it into this 10^6 square miles of ocean, and the ratio of plane to ocean area is 1.27 x 10^-9. This is roughly ten times larger than the ratio of a penny to a square mile. 
To make the situations more realistic, I suppose you would have to make the penny out of thin glass so that it broke up into small pieces upon impact.


----------



## dano (May 1, 2014)

Just being reported that the plane was carrying 440 pounds of li-ion batteries in its cargo...The plot thickens, somewhat...


----------



## StarHalo (May 1, 2014)

dano said:


> Just being reported that the plane was carrying 440 pounds of li-ion batteries in its cargo...The plot thickens, somewhat...



Was reported in late March, and here's why it wasn't a cargo/battery fire.


----------



## mcnair55 (May 1, 2014)

dano said:


> Just being reported that the plane was carrying 440 pounds of li-ion batteries in its cargo...The plot thickens, somewhat...



That is old news,so who has just reported that?


----------



## markr6 (May 2, 2014)

So what do you guys think about the info from GeoResonance saying they may have found a plane in the Bay of Bengal? Lots of critics, but what else to go on at this point?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/


----------



## StarHalo (May 2, 2014)

Ah, I see what Dano is talking about now; one of the just-released ICAO reports contains the cargo manifest papers, one of which details 5,400 lbs total in two shipments with a warning about lithium-ion battery handling; but this does not mean all of the weight was batteries - an article elsewhere lists one of the shipments as walkie-talkies, so it's electronic equipment. The much earlier post regarding fire still applies though.


----------



## degarb (May 2, 2014)

groutboy_1 said:


> Hmmm.....,



This is funny. Yet, too it is a shame we, the public, must allow the governement and companies to act like an inspector to forever follow us around with a notepad, writing down our every activity and movement. Doomed to this for the rest of our lives; all, for the low price of $99 plus a two year contract. Yet, such a technology that uses sat phone, is beyond an airliner budget.


----------



## ven (May 3, 2014)

I like that analogy Steve ,issue is iirc its up to 4 miles deep in parts,so the surface area is like a mountainous region which makes it so much more difficult....


----------



## mattheww50 (May 3, 2014)

The problem is that most large corporations are run by the 'bean counters'. Airlines are no exception. Unless you can show that a cost provides a return on investment, it isn't going to be made. Most Safety related expenditure actually have a return on investment, because if you don't make them, and you have a preventable accident, you open yourself up to a Negligence claim. To be honest I doubt it will make one iota of difference in what Malaysian Airlines ultimately pays out in settlement to the passengers as a result. So the return on investment would be zero. Malaysian Airlines liabilities are spelled out in something called the Warsaw Convention. Under the best of circumstances, it will be difficult for plantiffs to obtain standing to sue in the USA, so the risk of a large negligence award is probably close to zero, expecially if the aircraft wreckage cannot be located in the next couple of years.

In the case of AF447, the Sat communication that described the failures made it possible for AF to know what needed to be replaced on the aircraft before it was even scheduled to arrive in Paris. That means higher dispatch reliability, and with that, usually more revenue, so there is a return on investment. BTW, Air France actually did cut the paperwork and dispatch the replacement Pitot tubes as a result of the messages. So they were literally waiting for the aircraft to come in to make the necessary repairs. AF knew there was a problem with the Pitot tubes fitted on the aircraft, and were in the process of replacing them. The decision not to simply replace them all once the problem was known (and it was known long before the AF447 accident) was a return on investment decision. They didn't want to take all of the aircraft out of service to do it. Ultimately the Pilot's union forced them to do just that....

Regrettably this decisions are made every day, and people die and are seriously injured as a direct result every day. Consider the GM ignition switch. They figured it was cheaper to fight the claims than do the recall.


----------



## mcnair55 (May 3, 2014)

mattheww50 said:


> The problem is that most large corporations are run by the 'bean counters'. Airlines are no exception. Unless you can show that a cost provides a return on investment, it isn't going to be made. Most Safety related expenditure actually have a return on investment, because if you don't make them, and you have a preventable accident, you open yourself up to a Negligence claim. To be honest I doubt it will make one iota of difference in what Malaysian Airlines ultimately pays out in settlement to the passengers as a result. So the return on investment would be zero. Malaysian Airlines liabilities are spelled out in something called the Warsaw Convention. Under the best of circumstances, it will be difficult for plantiffs to obtain standing to sue in the USA, so the risk of a large negligence award is probably close to zero, expecially if the aircraft wreckage cannot be located in the next couple of years.
> 
> In the case of AF447, the Sat communication that described the failures made it possible for AF to know what needed to be replaced on the aircraft before it was even scheduled to arrive in Paris. That means higher dispatch reliability, and with that, usually more revenue, so there is a return on investment. BTW, Air France actually did cut the paperwork and dispatch the replacement Pitot tubes as a result of the messages. So they were literally waiting for the aircraft to come in to make the necessary repairs. AF knew there was a problem with the Pitot tubes fitted on the aircraft, and were in the process of replacing them. The decision not to simply replace them all once the problem was known (and it was known long before the AF447 accident) was a return on investment decision. They didn't want to take all of the aircraft out of service to do it. Ultimately the Pilot's union forced them to do just that....
> 
> Regrettably this decisions are made every day, and people die and are seriously injured as a direct result every day. Consider the GM ignition switch. They figured it was cheaper to fight the claims than do the recall.



Your theory down the tubes fella.


A US-based law firm that specialises in aviation law is expected to represent families of more than half of the passengers on board the missing Malaysian Airlines flight in a lawsuit against the operator and Boeing Co, manufacturer of the aircraft.


----------



## groutboy_1 (May 3, 2014)

The whole things fishy, period...A high degree of strangeness!


----------



## mcnair55 (May 3, 2014)

groutboy_1 said:


> The whole things fishy, period...A high degree of strangeness!



I will buy you a beer any day as i agree with you,like the farce of the moon landings they have never been there.


----------



## groutboy_1 (May 3, 2014)

Well, when it comes to conspiracy type theories...I error on the side of caution...(The moon landing stuff, that's another story...I guess your a Capricorn #1 theorist..I have some friends of the family that support argument for the Zacharia Sitchen's theories, Regarding the Annunaki , Earth's so called malevolent progenitors of ancient lore. And how their still here from the time of Noah...And we are their property...That they still have a clandestine military activity here in our a space...Since, If any the old stories hold any water...These people are very long lived, are 1000's of years ahead of us technology wise, and judging by biblical stories...Things like this would BE up their alley...Or so the other conspiracy theorists informed me....)


----------



## ven (May 3, 2014)

It has been a very interesting thread,opinions,theories in abundance,i do believe we will never know the full story/facts.

Imo it is in the ocean, i do believe it is there unfortunately ,how/why it got there is another matter,passengers may not even have known till the final minutes of the plane falling,i "presume" the pilot/s did.For what reasons i dont know,bad day,lost the plot,it can happen...........so many ifs.........

I think the government know a lot more than letting on too,but nothing new there!
Thoughts with all the families effected


----------



## mcnair55 (May 3, 2014)

ven said:


> It has been a very interesting thread,opinions,theories in abundance,i do believe we will never know the full story/facts.
> 
> Imo it is in the ocean, i do believe it is there unfortunately ,how/why it got there is another matter,passengers may not even have known till the final minutes of the plane falling,i "presume" the pilot/s did.For what reasons i dont know,bad day,lost the plot,it can happen...........so many ifs.........
> 
> ...



Mr Ven it is on the ground waiting to be used.


----------



## ven (May 3, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Mr Ven it is on the ground waiting to be used.



It would take some doing,even if its a(imo) 1% chance of that there is still that chance...........

Would think highly unlikely though,where could land a large plane,would require a significant runway for a start...........


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 3, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> Mr Ven it is on the ground waiting to be used.



Please, no more of these nonsense posts. You are looking like a troll with your baiting type posts.

Bill


----------



## Steve K (May 3, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> I will buy you a beer any day as i agree with you,like the farce of the moon landings they have never been there.



I've spent some time working with satellite components, worked with guys who were engineers during the Mercury and Gemini days, and have seen the thermal vacuum chamber for the Mercury and Gemini capsules (it's much larger than I would have thought, and I was surprised that McDonnell Douglas still had it in the early 90's). 

I have no doubt that the moon landings were real, but I really like XKCD's explanation for why it wasn't faked....

http://xkcd.com/1074/


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 3, 2014)

PM to mcnair55. 

Bill


----------



## StarHalo (May 3, 2014)

On July 29th 2011, an Egyptair 777-200 was doing their pre-flight check with 291 passengers on board, the causeway still attached, when a fire erupted in the cockpit; checks were proceeding normally and nominally when the first officer/co-pilot heard a pop and hiss sound to the right of his seat, and fire/smoke jetted out from under the right side console. The pilot immediately ordered the first officer out and fought the fire with a fire extinguisher, to no avail. The first officer notified the crew and emergency disembarkation was underway and complete in under five minutes. Fire trucks were on scene in three minutes and extinguished the fire quickly. Seven people total suffered minor smoke inhalation, no other injuries. 

Synopsis of the investigation: 



> The aircraft showed no defects that could have contributed to the accident. The investigation determined there were no fuel, hydraulic or oil lines near the cockpit area where the fire started. The investigation thus focussed on the crew oxygen system reasoning that the speed of the fire development required an accelerant.
> 
> The system's stainless steel supply tubes were found without any leakages, the stainless steel spring showed no evidence of arcing/electrical short circuit however most of the wiring was missing near the supply tube with evidence of melting.
> 
> ...














Now picture all of this happening at ~30,000 feet over the Indian Ocean; a flash fire limited to just the cockpit destroys the cockpit interior entirely while the flight is underway, possibly compounded by a hole burnt through the fuselage which has depressurized the cabin. What air there is to be used by any remaining crew would be employed trying to find a way to regain control of the plane, but that supply would last roughly less than half an hour, at which point there would be no survivors from depressurization. The plane would then theoretically hold its course waiting for the next control input until loss of fuel, when it would glide gradually to the sea.


----------



## nbp (May 3, 2014)

I thought you were against the fire idea StarHalo?


----------



## StarHalo (May 3, 2014)

nbp said:


> I thought you were against the fire idea StarHalo?



Against the *cargo hold* fire idea, yes, because the fire system there would easily manage even a li-ion fire, and if it didn't there would have been some very evident skywriting on the weather satellite imagery. But a brief, intense, almost entirely contained flash fire that only destroyed the plane's interface and was then extinguished certainly fits the facts. The problem is that there's no way to test for what happens when you irreparably damage a cockpit in-flight, there's no flight simulator that would allow you to hose down the control surfaces with a flamethrower and then see what unfolds..


----------



## orbital (May 4, 2014)

+

I don't buy the 'complete spontaneous combustion' of cockpit theory
at the first smell of smoke, some type of passenger safe _action_ could have been made.



*There may never be a mystery like this ever again*


----------



## HotWire (May 12, 2014)

Now it seems that the searchers will focus on an area where a substantial volume of pings was heard. Another 20,000 square miles to check! I think it will be found --- but finding it could take a long time....


----------



## newbie66 (May 12, 2014)

Maybe the Illuminati is involved. Or it may just be aliens. Who knows... Maybe we will never know in life.


----------



## newbie66 (May 12, 2014)

..........


----------



## StarHalo (May 14, 2014)

The search is on hold after an incident; a couple of days ago, _Bluefin_ was having some communication issues, so on winching it back up in 20 knot winds and 10 foot seas, it smacked into the side of the ship, damaging both in the process. Parts/repairs will take ~four days.

It faired better than the _Nereus_; four days ago, Woods Hole Oceanographic's submersible was deep-diving 10,000 meters down off the coast of New Zealand when suddenly all communication and data cut off - hours later, some debris was found floating in the area. A fault in the sub's buoyancy hardware apparently compromised the entire craft, causing the $8 million drone to be crushed like a soda can in the deep. It was in its fifth year of service, and was previously a dive depth world record holder.


----------



## adwordandi (May 15, 2014)

I still can't get it. kind of strange.


----------



## nbp (May 18, 2014)

Apparently now some guy is releasing a book talking about how the plane was shot down. Didn't see all the details of his theory yet.


----------



## mcnair55 (May 19, 2014)

nbp said:


> Apparently now some guy is releasing a book talking about how the plane was shot down. Didn't see all the details of his theory yet.



Sounds like a fast buck merchant to me.


----------



## HotWire (May 19, 2014)

Spare parts are available today to repair the transponders (Monday, May 19, 2014).


----------



## HotWire (May 22, 2014)

The Bluefin 21 has resumed its search and will work for 6 more days (Wednesday, May 22, 2014).


----------



## Norm (May 22, 2014)

I wish Australia had spent our $90M on other humanitarian projects, rather flight 370 which at best had a very low chance of success and involved a relatively small number of lives.

How much aid could be provided in areas that would be guaranteed to save lives?


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (May 22, 2014)

Norm said:


> I wish Australia had spent our $90M on other humanitarian projects, rather flight 370 which at best had a very low chance of success and involved a relatively small number of lives.
> 
> How much aid could be provided in areas that would be guaranteed to save lives?



Reading the linked story, 90 million is the amount that might be spent in the future,, depending on how long the search continues. Norm, why did you write as if the money has already been spent?

mcnair55, If the plane is on the ground, shouldn't the world be looking for it? what will be the cost if it is flown again?

~ Chance


----------



## mcnair55 (May 22, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Reading the linked story, 90 million is the amount that might be spent in the future,, depending on how long the search continues. Norm, why did you write as if the money has already been spent?
> 
> mcnair55, If the plane is on the ground, shouldn't the world be looking for it? what will be the cost if it is flown again?
> 
> ~ Chance



Chance,

Do not worry they will be but joe public will not be told everything that is going on,there is more to this story than we are being told for sure.


----------



## Norm (May 22, 2014)

Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Reading the linked story, 90 million is the amount that might be spent in the future,,


You're right of cause I hadn't done all my research (very little time spent on line recently). The news here was so poorly handled during in the event we were lead to believe there were new breaks coming through every day, when in fact they had zip.

Norm


----------



## HotWire (May 23, 2014)

A Chinese ship has begun towing equipment for a bathemetric survey of the ocean floor. The survey will map the ocean floor making it safe for other assets to swim at a preset level above the ocean floor while searching for flight 370 wreckage.


----------



## newbie66 (May 23, 2014)

It will never be found I believe. A mystery indeed...


----------



## InspectHerGadget (May 23, 2014)

They did hear the pings on multiple occasions so it is down there, just a matter of patient searching.

They did warn it would take many months, most likely to find it. Sound underwater does funny things depending on a whole host of factors.

I'm pretty much in agreements with experts on this that it will be found, that is the majority opinion.

The important facts are, the pings are not from whales or man made equipment and it is the ping from the device at the right frequency. It was detected and recorded on multiple occasions. The location of the pings also coincided with the final signal to the satellite where communication ended with an incomplete exchange.

It still isn't 100% certain, finding it but I think close to it, just a matter of time and money to find it and they seem committed to finding it.


----------



## newbie66 (May 24, 2014)

InspectHerGadget said:


> They did hear the pings on multiple occasions so it is down there, just a matter of patient searching.
> 
> They did warn it would take many months, most likely to find it. Sound underwater does funny things depending on a whole host of factors.
> 
> ...




I hope so.


----------



## mcnair55 (May 24, 2014)

newbie66 said:


> It will never be found I believe. A mystery indeed...



I am still in believing it is on the ground but if it is in the water enough money has been spent now and the search should be halted as this is costing mega millions to carry on.The money saved could be feeding dying starving children all over the world.


----------



## newbie66 (May 24, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> I am still in believing it is on the ground but if it is in the water enough money has been spent now and the search should be halted as this is costing mega millions to carry on.The money saved could be feeding dying starving children all over the world.




Too much money has been used alright. But if the search is stopped people in Malaysia will be angry with the government. Not to mention the damage to relationship with China.


----------



## mcnair55 (May 24, 2014)

newbie66 said:


> Too much money has been used alright. But if the search is stopped people in Malaysia will be angry with the government. Not to mention the damage to relationship with China.



In my younger days i was a member of the RNLI (UK Lifeboats),one summer we were searching for a man overboard,the search consisted of many civilian boats,Air Sea Rescue Helicopters from the Raf and numerous local ish lifeboats.We searched for hours and hours but at a certain point came a major decision to give it up.A body was washed up in the Fleetwood area as predicted a couple of weeks later.As cruel as it seems to stop searching someone has to say enough is enough.


----------



## InspectHerGadget (May 24, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> I am still in believing it is on the ground but if it is in the water enough money has been spent now and the search should be halted as this is costing mega millions to carry on.The money saved could be feeding dying starving children all over the world.



If your entire family were on the plane you might feel differently, not to mention there are other more objective needs to be met. The legal liabilities alone would justify finding the aircraft.

I think too, they would have given up by now if they only had most of the Indian Ocean to search, it would be too big an area to be realistic to search.

They have an excellent chance of finding it and I don't think that the cost is prohibitive. Boeing would like to find it, the Chinese government badly want to find it, the Malaysians kind of want to find it and us Australians coordinate the effort as it is our S&R area.

It is also psychologically important for air travellers and for the industry, not to mention the families involved to get this thing solved.

Obviously in 12 months once they've completed the search, if they find nothing, then it is time to quit. I'm pretty sure they'll find it though.


----------



## newbie66 (May 24, 2014)

This is so mind boggling! Let us hope and pray they find it.


----------



## InspectHerGadget (May 24, 2014)

newbie66 said:


> This is so mind boggling! Let us hope and pray they find it.



+1

I should add too that you can be sure that any mapping data of the sea floor will be made use of, as this area is unmapped so at the least they will end up with detailed mapping of the underwater terrain which can be used for scientific purposes as well.

What does **** me off are the plethora of bullshit theories that abound, gullible minds to believe them and media outlets hyping up misinformation to sell their products. So called experts get involved and find publicity and money by proposing alternative theories which give them media exposure. I can only guess what it must be like to have family missing while this long and painstaking search goes on.


----------



## newbie66 (May 24, 2014)

InspectHerGadget said:


> +1
> 
> I should add too that you can be sure that any mapping data of the sea floor will be made use of, as this area is unmapped so at the least they will end up with detailed mapping of the underwater terrain which can be used for scientific purposes as well.
> 
> What does **** me off are the plethora of bullshit theories that abound, gullible minds to believe them and media outlets hyping up misinformation to sell their products. So called experts get involved and find publicity and money by proposing alternative theories which give them media exposure. I can only guess what it must be like to have family missing while this long and painstaking search goes on.



I know what you mean. It is really sad.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (May 24, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> I am still in believing it is on the ground but if it is in the water enough money has been spent now and the search should be halted as this is costing mega millions to carry on.The money saved could be feeding dying starving children all over the world.



If money should be pulled from such an important event like finding a crashed Boeing 777-200ER(which may contain valuable information to help prevent crashes like that from happening again) to feed starving children then, according to that logic, all of us on CPF should sell our flashlights and use all that money to feed starving children in 3rd world countries. End of this hobby and also the end of this forum...


----------



## mcnair55 (May 24, 2014)

InspectHerGadget said:


> If your entire family were on the plane you might feel differently, not to mention there are other more objective needs to be met. The legal liabilities alone would justify finding the aircraft.
> 
> I think too, they would have given up by now if they only had most of the Indian Ocean to search, it would be too big an area to be realistic to search.
> 
> ...



My opinion differs and it is now a complete waste of money searching imo.



Fusion_m8 said:


> If money should be pulled from such an important event like finding a crashed Boeing 777-200ER(which may contain valuable information to help prevent crashes like that from happening again) to feed starving children then, according to that logic, all of us on CPF should sell our flashlights and use all that money to feed starving children in 3rd world countries. End of this hobby and also the end of this forum...



It all very well finding it but then spending mega millions getting it to the surface.Sorry imo enough is enough.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (May 24, 2014)

mcnair55 said:


> My opinion differs and it is now a complete waste of money searching imo.
> 
> 
> 
> It all very well finding it but then spending mega millions getting it to the surface.Sorry imo enough is enough.




That's fantastic you have such a strong opinion, but will you give up your very expensive flashlight hobby for 1 year and donate the proceeds to charity??? You cannot justify your hobby as more important than a search for a crashed plane right? Change has to start with yourself rather than others, so whats it gonna be hombre?? Spending thousands on your hobbies/going out on weekends, when the money spent could feed starving children in your country, gosh ... enough is enough!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 24, 2014)

Enough, no more responding to *mcnair55's posts. It just takes the thread off track. N**cnair55, you have made your point over and over again and it is agitating fellow posters, and disrupting this thread. Go to another thread, and leave this one.

Bill*


----------



## Norm (May 24, 2014)

Your argument is spurious Gav. the majority of members do not spend large sums of money each year on torches, most people have at least one or two hobbies, that does not mean they do not donate to charity.

As Bill added during my post, back on topic.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (May 25, 2014)

Whatever norm... the point is not how much we individually spend on hobbies, but the logic of his argument to support his opinion. Its always easier to critic when its someone else's loss on the line isn't it?


----------



## HotWire (May 28, 2014)

Bloomberg is reporting the Bluefin 21 is leaving the search area tomorrow. The sea floor is being mapped by a Chinese vessel and once a good map of the ocean floor is made the search will resume (possibly by a private contractor).

(Edit: A new search should begin sometime in August 2014. The ATSB has further refined the Inmarsat data and predicts the plane crashed near the "seventh arc" in the Indian Ocean.) (June 7, 2014)


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Jun 8, 2014)

Up for an update?


----------



## nbp (Jun 9, 2014)

Still nothing. Last I heard they were on Pause as they may have to shift the search area again. Big surprise there!


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 9, 2014)

The dude on the oil rig who claimed to see a fiery orange light in the sky was fired. The families thanked searchers but omitted Malaysia, and are doing an Indiegogo project to raise $5 million dollars to offer as a reward for information/whistleblowing. A Chinese ship is doing extensive sea floor mapping that will require several months. Inmarsat and the Malaysian govenment released all the raw satellite data, which conclusively proves the southern track of the arc is correct.


----------



## HotWire (Jun 16, 2014)

The BBC is reporting that Inmarsat has pinpointed a search area that has not yet been searched.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27870467


----------



## nbp (Jun 17, 2014)

You mean, like the rest of the ocean?


----------



## HotWire (Jun 19, 2014)

Ha, ha, ha!


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jun 19, 2014)

nbp said:


> You mean, like the rest of the ocean?





HotWire said:


> Ha, ha, ha!



Yep! That was pretty funny. I think it was the judicious placement of the comma. Reminds me of Seinfeld.

Like my Momma says, "Sometime we laugh to keep from crying."

~ Chance


----------



## A.Syamim (Jul 6, 2014)

Pray For MH370...


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Jul 7, 2014)

Still nothing.... Whoa...


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Jul 11, 2014)

Any news?


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 12, 2014)

The aforementioned Indiegogo project to raise $5 million dollars has thus far collected $92,643. Malaysia is sending more ships.


----------



## HotWire (Jul 14, 2014)

Here is an old flight data recorder teardown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQehX0rVYuY and here is some history about the inventor of the "black box" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40dgWPJBQZc I find it interesting that the inventor of the first flight data recorder made no money from his invention!


----------



## StarHalo (Jul 17, 2014)

Well now that we know flight 17 was shot down, that will probably be the end of the news on 370..


----------



## dc38 (Jul 17, 2014)

StarHalo said:


> Well now that we know flight 17 was shot down, that will probably be the end of the news on 370..



They both had something to do with Malaysia.

**meaning that Malaysia probably had very little do do with either case**


----------



## LightJunk (Jul 18, 2014)

My condolences goes to all families on board MH17. An immediate family(Husband, wife & 3 kids) of my colleague perished on that fateful flight. RIP.


----------



## justonething (Jul 18, 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-death-stepdaughter-MH17-plane-shot-down.html. How tragic is that! Life isn't fair.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 18, 2014)

Feel free to start a new thread on MH17, otherwise it is off topic here.

Bill


----------



## HotWire (Oct 6, 2014)

The search for flight 370 resumed with the first ship (of three) which will search farther south because the newest analysis of data projects a higher speed and a longer flight. Side-scan radar and sensors which can detect jet fuel will be used.


----------



## orbital (Oct 9, 2014)

+

the *NOVA* presentation on Flight 370, that aired last night, was very well done
..not an accident nor mechanical failure.

I did not realize the_ extremely narrow window_ between radar handoffs, it was a tiny 'blind' zone.
this is where all the deliberate actions, to make the plane invisible, started __________ _____________


----------



## HotWire (Oct 12, 2014)

I believe this is the video: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365334815/


----------



## groutboy_1 (Oct 17, 2014)

"Are u telling me know one has found THIS plane yet!? But, gov't in various countries can explain away *swamp gas, or ball lightning* though they Can't find a large aircraft thats vanished off the face of the Earth without a trace!? "


----------



## groutboy_1 (Oct 17, 2014)

"A new thread: In Search of Missing flights! Creepy!"


----------



## cland72 (Oct 17, 2014)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> the *NOVA* presentation on Flight 370, that aired last night, was very well done
> ..not an accident nor mechanical failure.
> ...



Wow, lends more credit to the theory that this plane is hidden in a hangar somewhere.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Oct 18, 2014)

The CEO of Emirates Airlines has just weighed in on this and he thinks the plane is not under water.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Dec 28, 2014)

Another plane goes missing, *AirAsia QZ8501. * AirAsia is Malaysia's budget airline.

Looks like 2014 is a bad year for air travel.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/air-asia-jet-loses-contact-with-air-traffic-control/story-fnizu68q-122716842700 


Its less than 24hrs after AirAsia QZ8501 has gone missing but aviation experts are saying that it shares similarities with MH370.


----------



## 5S8Zh5 (Dec 28, 2014)

They didn't find Air France 447's black boxes until more than 2 years after it disappeared, after the beacon batteries died on the flight data recorder (FDR) and cockpit voice recorder (CVR), and when they did find it, there was usable data that helped determine the cause of the crash. They knew where it crashed though, as they quickly recovered large pieces initially, while with MH370 they still don't know if the southern IO is the right place they are looking.


----------



## nbp (Dec 28, 2014)

Another vanishing plane?! Crazy crazy stuff. :/


----------



## markr6 (Dec 31, 2014)

nbp said:


> Another vanishing plane?! Crazy crazy stuff. :/



No kidding! Turns out they didn't find 8501 after initital reports said it was found with sonar. Hopefully this one is found given the smaller area, at least when compared to MH370.


----------

