Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

bbracken677
quoting post by sy.gunson

Nobody either myself or Mike McKay suggested an engine exploded... You made that claim. Not me.

Umm..I didn't say the engine exploded either. What I said was that his report of the "crash" was contradicted by the pings from the engines indicating continued operation. IF the plane went down when and where he said the engines would not have continued pinging hourly after the plane crashed since they would not have been operating any longer.

This is what you actually said:

His report said the plane blew up, and yet the engines continued reporting that they were operating long after that event would have shut them down.

You said that an explosion would have shut down the engines.

You inferred that an explosion was not possible because the engines kept running which is simply another way of saying that if there was an explosion it must have been an engine.

I think you are being economical with the truth and disingenious, saying one thing and then running away from it and insisting you did not. Stick to the facts and bat straight.

sy.gunson
Not saying specifically that they couldn't have, but you have to consider the possibilities. Another possibility to consider is whether or not when the RAM turbine was deployed was the electrical system fully functional or impaired?

If it's impaired I'd expect it to impair non-critical systems like the entertainment system, not communication.

Incidentally until now because of the massive silence about how the climb to 45,000ft was deduced I have assumed it could only have been from use of primary radar from Butterworth via the Radar Horizon, but in trawling back through scores of original accounts I came across mention that the engines gave a signal back through INMARSAT that they were at 45,000ft and then dropped to 23,000ft.

But was that one of the communications they came back later and said was false? I remember the WSJ admitting they made false claims about what the engines reported.

In any case this CNN article attributed those altitude reports to Malaysian radar, not engine reports:

www.cnn.com...

Malaysian military radar showed the plane climbing to 45,000 feet soon after disappearing from civilian radar screens and then dropping to 23,000 feet before climbing again, the official said.

Some have disputed whether the 45,000 feet was even possible with the load of fuel etc so I have no idea if that was MH370 at 45000 feet or perhaps something else, and the Malaysian military admitted they weren't sure either. It was above the aircraft ceiling but that doesn't convince me it's impossible.

An old friend of mine was a US Marine based as a satellite image interpreter at a CIA relay station in Turkey in the Cold War.

He told me in the early 1990s how he had studied a photo of two Soviet officers sitting at a table outdoors having coffee. He said he could read the brand of cigarettes from space.

...so when they show you grainy indistinct pictures remember they deliberately degrade the resolution for public release so as not to disclose the real capability of these satellites. If they say they have "high confidence" or "credible evidence" then they probably read the Boeing label and checked out the flaps, ailerons and slats on the wing down to the last nut and bolt.

reply to post by sy.gunson


I have no doubt that is true in highly watched areas.... where they are looking is no mans land,,,,, a single cactus in a very big desert

Arbitrageur

sy.gunson
Not saying specifically that they couldn't have, but you have to consider the possibilities. Another possibility to consider is whether or not when the RAM turbine was deployed was the electrical system fully functional or impaired?

If it's impaired I'd expect it to impair non-critical systems like the entertainment system, not communication.

There are instances of generator fires or arcing on aircraft in flight where actual flight systems have been knocked out and cockpit displays have crashed.

for example:

Boeing 787 5th prototype test aircraft generator fire on approach to land 10 November 10, 2010 10:01am, knocked out cockpit displays and disabled autothrottle.

McDonnall Douglas DC-9 operated by Air Canada 2 June 1983, inflight fire actual electrical cause never identified. Knocked out cockpit instruments.

A319, London Heathrow, 15 March 2009, an Airbus A319-100 on push-back lost all cockpit displays and developed smoke.

Airbus A321, en-route, Northern Sudan, 24 August 2010, an Airbus A321-200 operated by British Midland, loss of cockpit displays and un-commanded turns which vanished with de-selection of No.1 generator.

Communication is low on the list of priorities at night if all your cockpit displays just blacked out, your autothrottles disengaged and perhaps there is also fire and smoke in the cockpit.

In such an instance pilots would be down to torchlight with basic emergency analog (mechanical) flight instruments. With the autothrottles going haywire they may have pushed the throttles forward irrespective of whether they had any actual response and then been incapacitated with engines at full thrust when some systems crept back online.

The flight management computer ADIRU system has an automatic reboot facility to bring systems back online gradually after going through a systems fault check procedure, much like a home computer. I am unsure of the time this requires but seem to recall it takes at least a minute. In that time there may have been depressurisation and pilot incapacity. In either case, this would be a real survival situation and communication may have been a lower priority than just keeping airborne.

Incidentally until now because of the massive silence about how the climb to 45,000ft was deduced I have assumed it could only have been from use of primary radar from Butterworth via the Radar Horizon, but in trawling back through scores of original accounts I came across mention that the engines gave a signal back through INMARSAT that they were at 45,000ft and then dropped to 23,000ft.

But was that one of the communications they came back later and said was false? I remember the WSJ admitting they made false claims about what the engines reported.

In any case this CNN article attributed those altitude reports to Malaysian radar, not engine reports:

www.cnn.com...

Malaysian military radar showed the plane climbing to 45,000 feet soon after disappearing from civilian radar screens and then dropping to 23,000 feet before climbing again, the official said.

Some have disputed whether the 45,000 feet was even possible with the load of fuel etc so I have no idea if that was MH370 at 45000 feet or perhaps something else, and the Malaysian military admitted they weren't sure either. It was above the aircraft ceiling but that doesn't convince me it's impossible.

edit on 23-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Thanks for clarification, in which case i revert to what I originally stated which is that if RMAF Butterworth primary radar is still proof of a climb to 45,000ft (which I admit is difficult to imagine) then it has to be based on a 500nm range from the radar placing the aircraft where the oil rig worker said it was.

Ipso-facto the radar data corroborates the oil rig worker's sighting.

RickinVa
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

I have no doubt that is true in highly watched areas.... where they are looking is no mans land,,,,, a single cactus in a very big desert

Yes but I am referring to where they have reported sighting large pieces floating and have then published very grainy photos.

When they have directed cameras onto an area the resolution is far higher than you can imagine nor they are prepared to admit.

reply to post by civpop

civpop
Sky news now reporting french satellite picked up debris images in southern corridor, no photos yet.

Not surprising.

Here's an interesting exercise for you Civpop, and anyone else that cares to try it

Go to Google. Enter 'missing airline' (but almost anything on the topic will do as well), that combo works really well. See what you get.Tell us how many pages you have to go into before you get to the stories about the possibility of the Northern Corridor.

When I last looked (about 5 minutes ago) the first page was full of headlines focused on the search in the Indian Ocean.

Toward the bottom of page 2 in Google I found this. Here is the google page lead for it.

Mar 15, 2014 - Police raid house of the MH370 pilot of the plane, who failed to activate ... The missing aircraft could be as far north as Turkmenistan and ...

Notice the date? March 15. That was roughly the date when stories on the possibility of the Northern Corridor stopped, and everyone was sent off to look southward.

Interestingly when you click on that link you find nothing much at all about the Northern Corridor if you find anything about it! The actual quote was taken from no. 4 of the "a brief recap of today's events:' with no expansion on the subject.
One story I found that has mentioned the possibility is this. Here. Worth a read, for a number of reasons, particularly if your would like to rid yourself of the illusion that geopolitical tension is not hampering the efforts to find the answers to where, what, who, and why.

So, even though the Northern Corridor is arguably every bit as likely as the Southern Corridor, media do not report on this, at least there are no stories focused on that area that are allowed to enter the main news. All focus remains firmly on the other direction. Seems to me the media are behaving like vultures over fish bait (forgive the pun) rather than sharp eyed eagles investigating the other MAJOR possibility. Seems to me the media are missing 50% of the story. Now why would they be doing that do you suppose? And come to that why are governments spinning the story so our focus and that of MSN remains firmly in the south direction away from the Northern Corridor?

Why do you think that is?

Tallone
reply to post by civpop

 

civpop
Sky news now reporting french satellite picked up debris images in southern corridor, no photos yet.

Not surprising.

Here's an interesting exercise for you Civpop, and anyone else that cares to try it

Go to Google. Enter 'missing airline' (but almost anything on the topic will do as well), that combo works really well. See what you get.Tell us how many pages you have to go into before you get to the stories about the possibility of the Northern Corridor.

When I last looked (about 5 minutes ago) the first page was full of headlines focused on the search in the Indian Ocean.

My speculation (Note that I think the plane was H by someone and factors are indicative of this!)
1. Deflect attention from the primary areas of focus
2. Provide the perpetrators with a false sense of security to reduce their alertness (if not US)
3. Allow sufficient time to prepare for something
4. Brainwash everybody in advance of annoucing that the black box will never be recovered because of the depth of the IO!

sy.gunson
An old friend of mine was a US Marine based as a satellite image interpreter at a CIA relay station in Turkey in the Cold War.

He told me in the early 1990s how he had studied a photo of two Soviet officers sitting at a table outdoors having coffee. He said he could read the brand of cigarettes from space.

I'd like to see proof of this if at all possible please? I don't know of any current imaging or optical technology here in the second decade of the 21st century that would be able to resolve this detail from say 200 miles away in the vacuum of outer space.Add to this the loss of detail when taking the photos through 50 or more miles of moisture/dirt laden earth atmosphere and you will never ever have that sort of resolving power.If I take a photo of an aeroplane on the ground on a hot day,there's enough heat haze to make the registration letters illegible even if the subject is just half a mile away,and these letters can be up 0.5 meters tall at a guess.
So I'd have to say that these fantastic stories from last century are nothing more than urban myths that have been hyped up by Hollywood action films.

Boringly going on and on about this, I would like us to document the items which have been 'officially' reported and then 'officially' changed. I dont mean the search areas which are a best-guess (supposedly) but I mean things like the mangosteens/batteries which is just plain odd.

There was no 'maybe' language in reporting of the cargo by the CEO of MAS although I admit we have not had the cargo list itself published, have we?

I think an official change to the story can only mean two things - incompetence or cover-up. The why, is probably important in terms of how this is being played to us and exactly when the news was released.

GeisterFahrer
It also isn't speculation that the initial turn from the original flight plan, was programmed into the flight computer before the plane even took off.

Sorry , i really hate to post and not add anything, i just would like to point out that what you wrote here IS COMPLETE speculation!

We will never know the answer until they find the plane.

reply to post by puntito


Reportedly the 35,000 communication was said six times, which is perhaps also suspicious.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Or, it's a deliberate attempt to throw the dogs off.

If the plane is on the ground in DurkaDurkistan somewhere TPTB would be smart to put the public focus on another part of the world. Give the people who took it some breathing room while a response is prepared.

It may not be advantageous to advertise what they really know.


He built his own home Sim, so he knew the avionics system well. Could have swapped out the transponder in flight and turned the new one on as soon as they hit Vietnam airspace. I think the reason nobody saw it on radar is because on radar it looked like another plane. I think it flew unmolested to it's destination with none of the countries it flew over thinking anything was amiss.

Hell, he could have used a transponder for a large private jet, there are plenty of them flying around that part of the world.

When I say he, I mean any one of the three crew who had flight sims at home. The chief steward had one also, so it's possible neither pilot was involved. Unlikely, but possible.

ltinycdancerg
reply to post by WanDash

 

I concur.
Never has so much rested on the utterance of "all right, goodnight"

Nothing unusual about the sign off or the phone call. That is normal pilot stuff.

reply to post by Hmmmmmmm


I don't think TPTB have anything planned in response other than to create a diversion and get everybody looking the wrong way. They were behind it and have a goal in mind and don't want the rest of us finding out what it is and trying to stop it.

reply to post by Tallone


I really have no idea I'm as baffled by all this as anyone else, I don't deny there is most definitely political issues afoot in the whole SAR from the lack of data sharing to the SAR itself.

Interestingly, it was only reported yesterday that China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Laos, Krygyzstan and Kazakhstan confirmed verbally to Malaysia that there were no sightings of Mh370 on their Radar.

Malaysian Airlines Brief 22 March

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by puntito

 

Reportedly the 35,000 communication was said six times, which is perhaps also suspicious.

From the transcript I saw posted (pdf)

00:50:06 ATC: MH370, climbing to flight altitude 350
(ATC tells plane to go to 35000)

00:50:09 MH370: This is MH370, flight altitude 350
(Pilot read back of instructions to climb)

01:01:14 MH370: MH370 remaining in flight altitude 350
(at altitude)
01:01:19 ATC: MH370
01:07:55 MH370: MH370 remaining in flight altitude 350
(at altitude)

So that looks like 1 or 2 unsolicited transmission about 35K. I wonder about the call from ATC that wasn't answered. If the 12 minutes is correct then that's a few minutes before that point.

reply to post by sy.gunson


You can be an a$$hat all you want, but when the first sentence quoted from McKay's communication (as you provide) states:

"Gentlemen. I believe I saw the Malaysian Airlines flight come down."

Your statement:

"He NEVER repeat NEVER claimed that he himself saw the plane go down. "

Okie dokie...whatever.

sy.gunson

bbracken677
quoting post by sy.gunson

Nobody either myself or Mike McKay suggested an engine exploded... You made that claim. Not me.

Umm..I didn't say the engine exploded either. What I said was that his report of the "crash" was contradicted by the pings from the engines indicating continued operation. IF the plane went down when and where he said the engines would not have continued pinging hourly after the plane crashed since they would not have been operating any longer.

This is what you actually said:

His report said the plane blew up, and yet the engines continued reporting that they were operating long after that event would have shut them down.

You said that an explosion would have shut down the engines.

You inferred that an explosion was not possible because the engines kept running which is simply another way of saying that if there was an explosion it must have been an engine.

I think you are being economical with the truth and disingenious, saying one thing and then running away from it and insisting you did not. Stick to the facts and bat straight.

I think you are being obtuse by making any claim whatsoever that I stated the engines blew up. Obviously your grasp of the english language as well as logic is insufficient to the task.

And it's about freaking time.

“The whole world is looking for this missing plane and the person who arguably knows most about the state of mind of the man who captained the plane is being left alone,”

Spotlight on pilot's mystery caller and wife


Where has the pilot's wife been hiding all this time? Why has she not been interviewed by even one news source? You would think by now, she would have came forward and asserted her estranged husband was a good man. You would think, she would be leading the pressure to get the real data and info, so that she can clear her estranged husband from constant public & media demonization. But this has not been the case and despite the cultural norm I find that very interesting.