Flight MH370 was flown into water, says expert...

TheFlyingDisk · Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:05 am

777Jet wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
777Jet wrote:
.
2) While you are here, what is your version of MH17? I mean, who do you think shot it down? Who gave the orders? Who pressed the button? Russia? Ukraine?

He was way ahead of you there.

Spyhunter wrote:
MH17 was shot down by the Chinese version of the Buk, a Chinese crew having flown into a Ukrainian air base in the 7 days prior to the crash, I believe in an IL-96. They had been practising high-altitude interceptions for weeks before that. In order to make sure the plane made the kill zone, which was tightly confined due to the need to blame the Russian rebels and by implication President Putin, the aircraft was attacked by a Ukrainian Su-25 fitted with an upgraded radar and fire-control system, with its titanium armour tub removed, giving it an adequate performance at altitude. The Frogfoot attacked from the port side, aiming at the cockpit, with a view to killing or disabling the pilots. The radios were jammed again. An armed Ukrainian intelligence officer was in Kiev ATC, making sure the plane was funnelled into the war zone. It shouldn't have been anywhere near where it shot down. Listening to some commentators you would think the Russian rebels had set up their own ATC and were controlling their airspace.

Exit holes from the cannon (23 mil from memory) are visible in the wreckage. The Russian rebels were trapped into acquiring a Buk, but they had a launcher only without radar, making it useless for a high-altitude interception. They also lacked the arming codes, without which a Buk cannot be fired, in short they are blameless.

Some intellectually dishonest commentators alighted on the service ceiling of the Su-25, ignoring both the argument that it had been lightened (it did not need armour to engage an unarmed civilian airliner) and official statements of the Russian Ministry of Defence, confirming that a -25 could reach MH17's altitude on combat power, and could maintain that FL for about 10 minutes. That makes sense - one always has to be wary of published performance figures for military kites. Are the figures for combat power, or are they sustainable?

The target was clearly the Russian government, and President Putin, a nice man I gather, in particular. My assessment of the shoot-down is I believe shared by the GRU. My published commentary on http://www.VeteransToday.com was monitored in Russia, indeed I copied my articles on MH17 to a nice, retired GRU colonel as a courtesy, who happens to know the president.

Thanks for that.

I remember reading that now; have no idea why I forgot

Ask him about QZ8501 & SpaceShipTwo too!

zeke · Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:38 am

Spyhunter wrote:
What do you say was the fuel uplift for MH-370?

You have made numerous unfounded claims on this thread that they did not have enough fuel, and we are just learning that you dont even know how much they had on-board.

For the record I do know how much fuel they departed with, and the takeoff weight. I also know how much fuel was onboard at the last time the aircraft transmitted the cruise report. They had enough fuel at that point to fly for another 3300 nm plus at LRC, even further if they were flying econ cruise.

Spyhunter wrote:
but it isn't ordinary airline practice.

It is common practice for regional airlines operating in China due to the number of unplanned airspace and airport closures.

Spyhunter wrote:
I am not unfamiliar with commercial aviation and am aware of the post-flight paperwork

It is not the post flight paperwork which gives us the details here, airlines are required by law to retain a copy of the flight plan, copy of the fuel uplift receipt, copy of the maintenance log, copy of the load sheet, copy of the NOTOC prior to departure.

Spyhunter wrote:
I am also aware, with respect, that ACARS is an automated system. Some ACARS systems however can be programmed in flight.

ACARS is a communications network that uses both VHF radios and satellite communications. The aircraft automatically dump maintenance information onto the network as part of the trend monitoring of every flight, these reports are automatic and happen without the flight crew being aware. Flight crew also via the FMC can make requests via the ACARS network for weather and aircraft performance information, sending text messages to their operator or to other aircraft. The network can also be used to have datalink with ATC.

ACARS is not "programmed" in flight.

neutrino · Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:47 am

777Jet wrote:
I remember reading that now; have no idea why I forgot

Atrophy of the grey matter?

Spyhunter · Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:56 am

Responding firstly to 777 Jet I believe the SAM used by the PLA to shoot down MH-17 was a HQ-17B, which is optimised for high-altitude interception. These are truck-mounted, with a six-tube vertical launcher. The cannon used to disable the pilots was 30 mil, not 23. The Su-25 was a 25M-1, with upgraded radar and fire control, capable of a flank attack. The SAM truck and radar were flown into a Ukrainian air force base on an IL-96.

Turning now to fuel state, the reported uplift for MH-370 is 108,200 lbs, with 82,000 lbs allowed for KUL-PEK. Like all the Malaysian data, in particular data which emerged slowly, these figures have to be treated with some reserve. I would expect about 25 lb/mile for a 777-2H6ER at cruising speed and altitude, allowing for taxi, take-off and climb to FL350, I would have expected something closer to 75,000 lbs, with around 100,000 lbs including reserves. One-third for diversion reserves and contingency is a reasonable allowance.

Planned flight time was 5 hrs 34 mins. The official endurance figure is 7 hours 31 mins.

The primary search box is BELOW the 30th parallel! On the Malaysian version, relying on that delayed Malaysian military radar reporting, MH-370 is last seen 200 nm west of Penang. It then flies further west, to divert around Sumatra, before turning south. The aircraft has to fly some 600 nm before turning south. 370 rotated at 1642 Zulu and had already flown 40 minutes before radar contact is lost. I estimate the total distance to the approximate centre of the primary search box as 3,700 miles from the point where the aircraft diverts from its flight plan. However this is not all cruise flight. We have to allow for the fuel-consuming manoeuvres, including a climb, observed on Vietnamese radar before turning west, a turn NOT observed, by the way, on Vietnamese radar. I therefore respectfully maintain that the search box based on the INMARSAT data, was not reachable, even allowing for say 75 nm glide. More to the point the nearest airfield capable of taking a 777, which I calculate to be PER, was well out of range. I return to a point I made earlier - what was Captain Shah DOING over this remote part of the ocean? Commercial airline pilots tend to be rational people.

There is a more fundamental problem. The theorised flight west of Penang and around the northern tip of Sumatra takes MH-370 within range of the radars at the Car Nicobar Indian Air Force Base, in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal. The Indian armed forces have impressive radar capability, much of it indigenous and produced by Bharat Electronics. They have long-range phased array, S-Band and 3D systems. The Indian silence on 370 is telling, given that MH-370 would have shown up on several Indian systems had it flown along the proposed track.

Spyhunter · Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:06 am

Zeke makes my point for me - the crew can use ACARS for communication, via the FMC. Since the messages require input into the FMC it involves entering data onto a computer. Perhaps 'programming' was poor use of language.

Once governments and intelligence agencies get involved data tends to get manipulated. You are treating soft data as hard data. I am exercising caution before doing so. I know the official fuel uplift, I am simply not buying it without independent verification. I can see the sense of regional airlines in China loading extra fuel, but of course that would not normally apply to international airlines flying to major airports. I doubt that PEK is subject to too many unplanned closures, with respect.

enzo011 · Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:46 am

Spyhunter wrote:
Zeke makes my point for me - the crew can use ACARS for communication, via the FMC. Since the messages require input into the FMC it involves entering data onto a computer. Perhaps 'programming' was poor use of language.

Once governments and intelligence agencies get involved data tends to get manipulated. You are treating soft data as hard data. I am exercising caution before doing so. I know the official fuel uplift, I am simply not buying it without independent verification. I can see the sense of regional airlines in China loading extra fuel, but of course that would not normally apply to international airlines flying to major airports. I doubt that PEK is subject to too many unplanned closures, with respect.

So we should disregard what pilots flying into China tells us because you know better? Or maybe Zeke has been planted here to sow disinformation about fuel specifically for this accident?

zeke · Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:32 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
Turning now to fuel state, the reported uplift for MH-370 is 108,200 lbs, with 82,000 lbs allowed for KUL-PEK.

MH is metric, there was no "lbs" of fuel loaded.

Spyhunter wrote:
Like all the Malaysian data, in particular data which emerged slowly

It was made available immediately, where is your evidence that the data "emerged slowly" ?

Spyhunter wrote:
I would expect about 25 lb/mile for a 777-2H6ER at cruising speed and altitude, allowing for taxi, take-off and climb to FL350, I would have expected something closer to 75,000 lbs, with around 100,000 lbs including reserves. One-third for diversion reserves and contingency is a reasonable allowance.

Looks like we dont need expensive computers and flight planning information, we can flight plan a $100 million jet with back of fag packet calculations. Disregard the approved fuel policy, actual weather conditions, and manufacturers data that MH use to generate their flight plan, they have it all wrong. You have all heard it now.

Spyhunter wrote:
Planned flight time was 5 hrs 34 mins.

How is that flight time derived ?

Spyhunter wrote:
The official endurance figure is 7 hours 31 mins.

What is "official endurance",

Spyhunter wrote:
Zeke makes my point for me - the crew can use ACARS for communication, via the FMC. Since the messages require input into the FMC it involves entering data onto a computer. Perhaps 'programming' was poor use of language. .

Crews do not "program" the maintenance reports transmitted by the aircraft, they are fully automatic done behind the scene.

'programming' was poor use of language, you just have no idea how the system works.

Auchmithie · Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:01 pm

zeke wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
Turning now to fuel state, the reported uplift for MH-370 is 108,200 lbs, with 82,000 lbs allowed for KUL-PEK.

MH is metric, there was no "lbs" of fuel loaded. .

Spyhunter doesn't do metric zeke. Metrication is no doubt a plot by the German DVD. He represented the "metric martyrs" in court don't you know? The judge noted that he argued his case with "passionate rhetoric" which "did not advance his clients' case". Sound familiar?

BaconButty · Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:25 pm

777Jet wrote:
Having said that, I quoted a well known and highly respected aviation expert, among others, who share that same opinion on the benefits of flying along FIR boundaries to avoid questions. I am yet to read anything from an expert sharing your opinion.

MH370 flying along FIR boundaries is mostly myth. I would be more accurate to say that MH370 re-entered the Malay peninsular at the boundary between FIR Kuala Lumpur and FIR Bangkok. However they leave land some 90nm to the south of said boundary (which is also the border). Prior to that they weren't particularly following the boundary as anyone can see here - in that part of the world they couldn't avoid being in proximity to one since 4 flight information regions converge. It's just another of those things that gets repeated until people take it as fact, along with supposed evidence of the pilots state of mind and anybody dissenting is said to be obtuse. As 777Jet said "This has been discussed over and over in the MH370 threads." so it must be true.

I'm surprised people still resort to the fantastical stuff when in all fairness real evidence is starting to slowly accumulate. The fact that the search of the priority area has so far failed to find anything (making controlled flight at the end more likely), Larry Vance's thoughts on the state of the flaperon, and now the details of the flight sim data. Thanks Finn350 for the link. Still some doubt over that though. It seems these 6 points are among thousands (if the ATSB spokesman is to be believed), and it's not known is they're from the same flight, they've just been selected as the most coherent set that could be from a "practice run". It looks to me like linking the first 4 with the last 2 is pure speculation, however, just looking at the last 2, fuel starvation in the SIO does make you wonder.

salttee · Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:35 pm

BaconButty wrote:
they leave land some 90nm to the south of said boundary (which is also the border). Prior to that they weren't particularly following the boundary as anyone can see here

I wouldn't take the map drawn by Andrew Heneen as shown on Wikipedia Commons as the precision gospel truth, as the Malaysian radar returns have never been released to him or anyone else afik. But it's easy to see that the flight path of 9MMR0 wouldn't have precisely followed the jagged FIR / national boundary along the Thai Malaysian border.

I have always assumed that MH-370 discussions of a flight path along a FIR boundary were referring to the Malacca strait portion of its route, specifically the part beginning about the VAMPI to IGEBO or POVUS waypoints. There are several reasons to think the plane flew just to the north of that portion of the Indonesian / Malaysian FIR, but this has been disputed by some for reasons that escape me.

BaconButty wrote:
I'm surprised people still resort to the fantastical stuff when in all fairness real evidence is starting to slowly accumulate.

The flight path from turnaround to Koto Bharu then across the peninsula and out past MEKAR has been known from the first weeks after the disappearance, the correlation of the "ten miles past MEKAR" with the first ping ring has been known and posted here for over a year. It just has taken some time for some people to accept the obvious.

AerolineasAR343 · Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:01 pm

Spyhunter, I have read your answers here with utmost interest. The world you paint with them is certainly... pintoresque, to say the least. I'm just confused though: Who are the Good Guys and Bad Guys? What makes them good and bad?

BaconButty · Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:02 pm

salttee wrote:
I wouldn't take the map drawn by Andrew Heneen as shown on Wikipedia Commons as the precision gospel truth, as the Malaysian radar returns have never been released to him or anyone else afik. But it's easy to see that the flight path of 9MMR0 wouldn't have precisely followed the jagged FIR / national boundary along the Thai Malaysian border.

It's actually sourced from page 3 of the ATSB document Definition of Underwater Search Areas. I linked to the Wikipedia Commons since the same path had been superimposed on the FIR boundaries. And when I mentioned stuff of fantasy, I was referring to the so called evidence of Zaharie's state of mind - or his diagnosis of "Amuk" as one poster had it in the early days. Nobody sane believes the aircraft crashed in the South China sea, surely.

AerolineasAR343 · Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:10 am

You have to command Spyhunter for at least keep decorum and for trying to answer seriously even if everyone (me included) thinks those aren't more than conspiracy theories right out of a bad LeCarre book.

Still I don't understand and I'm trying to: pretty much every occidental nation thinks of Germany if not as an ally, at least a leading force of good, given it's efforts to reconcile and ask for forgiveness after WWII. But now, they're shooting down airplanes full of innocent people? And turns out that Russia is a Good Guy but China isn't, somehow? I'm trying to decipher the logic here.

Spyhunter · Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:38 am

Thank you Aerolineas! The Germans have been conning us since WW2 - they never shut down their intelligence. China is a communist dictatorship. I see that no one has an answerto my IAFB Car Nicobar point.

SoJo · Sat Aug 20, 2016 7:21 pm

I'll answer you Spyhunter. Just stop the spiel. Simples innit. Listen to Zeke, someone that knows about aviation. OK? Geez

Spyhunter · Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:49 am

That's hardly an answer, SoJo, just an ad hominem attack. I thought I had responded to Zeke's comments - we have been mainly debating the endurance point, which I respectfully suggest I have dealt with. Taking into account the known flight path and radical manoeuvres of MH370, the aircraft weight (she was comparatively heavy, with 227 passengers and 31,517 lbs of cargo), the presumed flight across the Malay Peninsula and the lengthy dogleg around the northern tip of Sumatra it wouldn't have had enough fuel to reach the southernmost 'ping' point, which takes down the INMARSAT evidence. The explanation for that evidence -dodgy data - is obvious.

That assumes that the published 108,200 lb fuel uplift figure is accurate. Malaysia is a Chinese client state however, and all the Malaysian data, much of which, e.g. the radar reporting, is not confirmed by other states, has to be viewed with reserve. For the reasons I have given I reject the 108,200 lb figure, which I think is perhaps 5% too high, bearing in mind that this was only a 2,700 mile flight, a 777-200 should consume no more than 250 lb/min in cruise flight, and Malaysian, which was struggling financially, had a tight fuel policy in 2014, so that the 33.3% figure for diversion reserves and contingency which Zeke is using may be too generous,

The dogleg around Sumatra poses insuperable difficulties, given that no target corresponding to a 777 was picked up by IAFB Car Nicobar's radar systems, nor is there any supporting Indonesian radar data.

I do happen to know something about aviation, SoJo. In case anybody missed the Beverley reference that's a nod to the dear old Blackburn B-101 Beverley C Mk 1, powered by Bristol Centaurus 173s, pushing out 2,850 HP each, although they were under-developed, after the Abwehr forced out Roy Fedden,the engine's designer, from Filton, partly in order to sabotage the Centaurus programme. That's probably a reference to a 47 Squadron machine, 47 having done good work in World War II with Beauforts, Beaufighters and other fine old kites,

As it happens, I have flown into and out of RAF Abingdon, in a Bulldog T Mk 1. Not a 777, I will grant you, but I have flown aircraft. I soloed in 1979.

zeke · Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:38 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
For the reasons I have given I reject the 108,200 lb figure, which I think is perhaps 5% too high, bearing in mind that this was only a 2,700 mile flight, a 777-200 should consume no more than 250 lb/min in cruise flight, and Malaysian, which was struggling financially, had a tight fuel policy in 2014, so that the 33.3% figure for diversion reserves and contingency which Zeke is using may be too generous,

No one really cares what you think they should or should not carry for a fuel load, they will carry the fuel required by the DCA approved fuel policy.

The trip fuel required for KUL-PEK was 37.2 tonnes (5 hrs 34) that is to climb, cruise, descend and to make an approach, alternate fuel for of 10.7 tonnes to fly from PEK-HGH (1 hr 45) which is to make a missed approach climb cruise descend and to make an approach plus 30 holding reserve at the alternate at 1500 ft. Fuel on pushback was 49.7 tonnes (Left Tank 24.9 tonnes Right Tank was 24.8 tonnes).

Spyhunter wrote:
no target corresponding to a 777 was picked up by IAFB Car Nicobar's radar systems

Who said they have radar there ?

Who said the aircraft came within radar range even if they did ? You know radar cannot see through the curvature of earth ?

Spyhunter wrote:
nor is there any supporting Indonesian radar data.

The MH370 factual report states that the aircraft was picked up by the Medan military radar, and the aircraft did spend a considerable amount of time traversing is radar visual range. The Medan radar coverage does not overlap with

Spyhunter · Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:02 pm

There is a slight discrepancy between the published figures. I have seen figures for 108,200 lbs. The difference between our two positions is not that great - perhaps 5,000 lbs at most, but I am trying to work from hard data. The Malaysian data is not hard. 10.7 metric tons for HGH seems a little high, with respect,but there's not much in it, nor it is obvious why HGH was selected as an alternate.

Of course I am aware that X-Band and S-Band radar is limited by the curvature of the earth, but that limitation applies more to sea-level targets. The suggestion is that MH370 flew at a typical cruise altitude, say FL350, where both X and S band radar would have a reasonable range. I was unaware of the alleged Medan radar coverage, but I am wholly unimpressed by unverified claims from ChiCom client states. The Indonesians permitted the Chinese to use an air force base to refuel one the IL-96s engaged in dropping transmitters, designed to imitate the beacons on a black box, and the second set of wreckage.

Car Nicobar is an important air defence base, with an 8,900 ft runway. It also operates civilian flights from Port Blair. It is a strategically placed installation and has radar!

zeke · Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:08 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
There is a slight discrepancy between the published figures. I have seen figures for 108,200 lbs. The difference between our two positions is not that great - perhaps 5,000 lbs at most, but I am trying to work from hard data. The Malaysian data is not hard. 10.7 metric tons for HGH seems a little high, with respect,but there's not much in it, nor it is obvious why HGH was selected as an alternate.

No one cares what numbers you find, anything that is not metric is garbage, MH uses metric for the fuel quanitiies, on their flight plans, when ordering fuel, and displayed on the aircraft displays. This has already been pointed out to you and you persist on using the garbage from the Wiki page.

I have presented the actual fuel on pushback, the exact quality in each wing. The fuel load is verified by four means, the fuel on arrival from the previous flight plus the fuel loaded, the cockpit displays prior to departure, the multiple automatic maintenance messages, and the multiple automatic ATC messages.

Spyhunter wrote:
The suggestion is that MH370 flew at a typical cruise altitude, say FL350, where both X and S band radar would have a reasonable range.

Radar range at FL350 is 229 nm.

Spyhunter wrote:
I was unaware of the alleged Medan radar coverage

There is radar coverage there from Medan and Ache. http://www.icao.int/RO_APAC/Documents/e ... /cns4a.pdf

That is Malaysian Airspace. http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf/ENR/ENR ... Enr1_6.pdf

This is why Indonesian, Malaysia, and Thailand have been the primary source for radar information

Spyhunter wrote:
Car Nicobar is an important air defence base, with an 8,900 ft runway. It also operates civilian flights from Port Blair. It is a strategically placed installation and has radar!

Prove it, all talk, no evidence.

Port Blair which is far more important in that area has its radar turned off at night, been part of the blame for the recent IAF crash enroute to IXZ.

PlanesNTrains · Tue Aug 23, 2016 4:56 am

I purposely avoided this thread since it's inception because I just wanted to skip any drama. I saw today that Zeke had submitted the most recent reply so decided to check it out as I respect his knowledge and experience when it comes to these topics.

Having read the thread in it's entirety, I will say that it was both entertaining and vaguely familiar. Each time we enter into these investigations, there is one or more posters who have a very similar writing style. I'm not saying that they are the same person or that they are functioning in unison. However, having read Spyhunter's interesting and detailed posts, I will say with respect that they are very similar to those of other members who in my opinion have an agenda. Whether that is to get attention, earn some cash, throw people off track, spread disinformation, or just to feel like the smart guy, the approach is the same.

Honestly, I'm surprised time and time again that they feel they are convincing others of their point of view. I would think at some point they'd change up the approach to make it more believable, rather than elaborate on unrelated details, ignore facts, praise the Russians, say something doesn't matter when it goes against their agenda but that something does matter when it supports their agenda, and on and on and on.

I appreciated the poster (forget who now) that asked him why he's still alive. I was thinking the same thing. You are spreading all of this secret information and apparently everyone is thrilled to have him doing it - his sources, the "good guys", the "bad guys", etc. Why don't they just publish the info themselves if they are that eager to have it see the light of day?

We have a discredited hatch of some sort found in the SCS that - on it's own and with no other debris found - proves something. Afterall, wreckage doesn't just appear on it's own - it had to come from a wreck. Unless, of course, it's found in the SIO, Africa, etc. - then I gather it was planted or otherwise doesn't prove anything.

I'm slightly embarrassed when reading the comments about fuel where it's stated as almost an assumption of what quantity and airliner typically carries on a given route, and when presented with facts to the contrary, seems to brush them off. It seems to be the m.o. of these folks.

Anyhow, it's an hour I'll never get back but it was entertaining, if a bit disconcerting. Disconcerting because I get slightly disillusioned when we are confronted with folks who appear to have an agenda and are willing to come in here and attempt to manipulate the forum for their won gain (whatever that may be).

Well, interesting as it is, I'm bummed that nothing really new came out of it. There is hope for the future, though, that we will one day learn what really happened to MH370 (and all the other apparent missile-attacked airliners).

cougar15 · Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:47 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I purposely avoided this thread since it's inception because I just wanted to skip any drama. I saw today that Zeke had submitted the most recent reply so decided to check it out as I respect his knowledge and experience when it comes to these topics.

Having read the thread in it's entirety, I will say that it was both entertaining and vaguely familiar. Each time we enter into these investigations, there is one or more posters who have a very similar writing style. I'm not saying that they are the same person or that they are functioning in unison. However, having read Spyhunter's interesting and detailed posts, I will say with respect that they are very similar to those of other members who in my opinion have an agenda. Whether that is to get attention, earn some cash, throw people off track, spread disinformation, or just to feel like the smart guy, the approach is the same.

Honestly, I'm surprised time and time again that they feel they are convincing others of their point of view. I would think at some point they'd change up the approach to make it more believable, rather than elaborate on unrelated details, ignore facts, praise the Russians, say something doesn't matter when it goes against their agenda but that something does matter when it supports their agenda, and on and on and on.

I appreciated the poster (forget who now) that asked him why he's still alive. I was thinking the same thing. You are spreading all of this secret information and apparently everyone is thrilled to have him doing it - his sources, the "good guys", the "bad guys", etc. Why don't they just publish the info themselves if they are that eager to have it see the light of day?

We have a discredited hatch of some sort found in the SCS that - on it's own and with no other debris found - proves something. Afterall, wreckage doesn't just appear on it's own - it had to come from a wreck. Unless, of course, it's found in the SIO, Africa, etc. - then I gather it was planted or otherwise doesn't prove anything.

I'm slightly embarrassed when reading the comments about fuel where it's stated as almost an assumption of what quantity and airliner typically carries on a given route, and when presented with facts to the contrary, seems to brush them off. It seems to be the m.o. of these folks.

Anyhow, it's an hour I'll never get back but it was entertaining, if a bit disconcerting. Disconcerting because I get slightly disillusioned when we are confronted with folks who appear to have an agenda and are willing to come in here and attempt to manipulate the forum for their won gain (whatever that may be).

Well, interesting as it is, I'm bummed that nothing really new came out of it. There is hope for the future, though, that we will one day learn what really happened to MH370 (and all the other apparent missile-attacked airliners).

Great post Dave, but at least these threads keep us entertained on nights that we cant sleep! Saves me throwing money at apple for some weird novel on those nights, as appart from one or 2 members these threads have about the same quality
I agree with everything you say.

Passedv1 · Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:52 am

I haven't been following the developments about MH370 so forgive me if this doesn't quite fit the known information. Several posters have stated that because the flaps were down the pilot clearly intended a controlled ditching...I will offer three other reasons why a pilot might put the flaps down...

1. To get down quickly...if you wanted the express lane to the surface from FLXXX a pilot might put the gear and flaps out for extra drag...push the nose over and roll off the lift.

2. If you were in an intentional ditching scenario the GPWS "too low gear" or "too low flaps" might cause a pilot to put the gear and flaps out either out of habit or just to shut the system up. It's a pretty jarring warning/annoying even for a rogue pilot in his final moments.

3. To fly slow...if I wanted to evade detection after just hijacking a 777...i'd duck down low and slow way down. They'd be looking for a jet in the flight levels going 500 i'd be down at 5,000 feet doing 130.

barney captain · Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:30 am

Passedv1 wrote:
I haven't been following the developments about MH370 so forgive me if this doesn't quite fit the known information. Several posters have stated that because the flaps were down the pilot clearly intended a controlled ditching...I will offer three other reasons why a pilot might put the flaps down...

2. If you were in an intentional ditching scenario the GPWS "too low gear" or "too low flaps" might cause a pilot to put the gear and flaps out either out of habit or just to shut the system up. It's a pretty jarring warning/annoying even for a rogue pilot in his final moments.

Except all one would need to do is push the EGPWS Inhibit -

Spyhunter · Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:01 am

In response to PlanesNTrains my agenda is simple: I want to avoid further airliner shoot-downs using medium or long range SAMs, a threat to which the aviation community has been blind since TWA800. Given improved airport security after Air India, Lockerbie and other incidents involving IEDs being placed aboard aircraft it was perhaps inevitable that the Bad Guys would switch to SAMs. The tragedy was that the debate was distorted by the greatly exaggerated threat from MANPADS, which typically have an effective ceiling of around FL150.

The fuel debate is about 4-5,000 lbs at most. Of course I am aware of the need for diversion reserves, but I want to arrive at hard data. Zeke, with respect, has zeroed in on the official Malaysian data and treated it as accurate, but there is every reason to doubt it. The 108,200 lb figure on Wiki wasn't just made up, i.e. there appear to be at least two fuel uplift figures in circulation based on nominally credible sources. My point about the price of Jet 1 being around $120 a barrel in Q1 2014 has not been responded to - people are assuming one-third reserves, which is current airline practice, but with respect are overlooking the steep decline in the price of Jet 1 from Q3 2014, which in turn led to a relaxation of airline fuel policies. My opinion is that Malaysian's bean counters were keeping a close eye on fuel costs in March 2014.

The Imperial system is superior to metric - it's the system which took NASA to the Moon and back and won two world wars. It's easier to use and less vulnerable to mistakes by a factor of 10, which tend to be big ones. Surely the aviation community hasn't forgotten the Gimli Glider incident?

Radar data out of Chinese client states has to be viewed with suspicion when dealing with a shoot-down incident involving the PLA Navy. Thailand in 2014 was under heavy Chinese influence, ditto Malaysia and Indonesia, the latter two being Chinese client states. The Chinese are aggressive and have a lengthy history of interfering with regional neighbours. It is telling that two of the neighbours which China has invaded, Vietnam and India, do NOT support the radar data being pushed out by KL, Bangkok and Jakarta. Peking carries a lot of clout in Canberra too, since they are Australia's biggest customer for minerals. Their external intelligence service (CSIS) has been buying up or blackmailing Aussie 'pollies' for years, and arranged the assassination of Harold Holt,who sensibly wanted to increase Australian involvement in Vietnam.

Research overnight, in response to Zeke's request for more information on the radar systems at Car Nicobar (CarNic), has thrown up two articles by Indian aviation expert Captain A Ranganathan in The Hindu in March 2014. Captain Ranganathan had heard that the CarNic radars were switched off at night, like those of Port Blair. However, with respect, his information was probably out of date.

CarNic is a strategic facility. It's the southernmost Indian Air Force base and the closest to the strategic Malacca Straits, through which flow most of China's oil supply. The base was rapidly rebuilt after the 2004 tsunami. Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) was India's first joint command and is headed by a 3-star, Air Marshal P K Roy at the time of the MH370 shoot-down. Its radar had recently been upgraded, with its existing Rohini system being supplemented with the excellent Israeli-developed Arudhra Medium Power Radar, an advanced Active Phased Array system. Painting a 777-sized target at 229 nm, Zeke's figure, which I accept with respect, bearing in mind that radar performance can vary, would easily be achievable by an Arudhra. CarNic is now home to 37 Wing, and has an air defence unit. The IAF have deployed Su-30s there on exercise and the base itself is commanded by a 1-star, Air Commodore T K Sinha in 2014 I think. I don't see it shutting it down at night, although I am sure it did in sleepier times, when it just had a helo detachment.

I believe the Port Campbell naval base, also part of ANC, also has air search radar. More to the point India's powerful Eastern Naval Command (ENC) had some 50 surface vessels in 2014, which are regularly deployed within the ANC sea control area. It is highly unlikely that no Indian warship was present in the ANC sea control area on the night of 7th & 8th March 2014.

Even on the figures cited by Zeke for fuel uplift there is a problem reaching the SIO search box. What has been proposed isn't a 270 magnetic or thereabouts course west of Penang, but a series of doglegs to avoid radar, via VAMPI, GIVAL, MAPSA, MINAJ (? for the last letter) and IGREX. This all burns fuel and points up a fatal flaw in the SIO theory, with respect: a flight-path avoiding radar requires more fuel than MH370 had remaining at the time of departure from the flight-plan even on the most generous figure and a flight-path taking the shortest, othodromic, route to the SIO from a turning point close to the Sumatran coast, with a fairly direct route from the SCS, would have brought MH370 within range of radar stations which did not paint it.

teme82 · Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:23 am

Spyhunter wrote:
In response to PlanesNTrains my agenda is simple: I want to avoid further airliner shoot-downs using medium or long range SAMs, a threat to which the aviation community has been blind since TWA800.

Oh no! Not this debate again!

Spyhunter · Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:39 am

I suspect Captain Barney is right re the EGPWS inhibit, and that you could also pull a circuit-breaker.

Responding briefly to Passedv1, I'd be low and slow as well, lower than 5,000 ft in fact, if I wanted to avoid radar. Not sure abut 130 knots in a 777 at sea-level however - I suspect you might want to dial in some flap that low and slow. There are two problems however - fuel burn and timeline. The INMARSAT data assumes normal cruise speed. At 130 knots the flight profile would not fit the INMARSAT data. There is also the issue of fuel burn, especially if say 5 deg of flap were selected to aid low-speed, low-altitude handling.

speedbird73 · Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:43 am

Spyhunter wrote:

The Imperial system is superior to metric - it's the system which took NASA to the Moon and back and won two world wars. It's easier to use and less vulnerable to mistakes by a factor of 10, which tend to be big ones. Surely the aviation community hasn't forgotten the Gimli Glider incident?

How exactly is the imperial system less vulnerable to mistakes?

The Gimli Glider incident was caused by using incorrect conversion factors. If an aircraft is load controlled in kgs, then use of kgs throughout is the only way to ensure true accuracy. You're the one converting to lbs when the aircraft, fuel and all calculations relating to this incident are in kgs.

SomebodyInTLS · Tue Aug 23, 2016 12:49 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
The Imperial system is superior to metric - it's the system which took NASA to the Moon and back and won two world wars. It's easier to use and less vulnerable to mistakes by a factor of 10, which tend to be big ones.

I ... err.... what?!?

Speaking as an engineer - metric is a thousand times(*) less likely to cause errors and confusion than mismatched, outdated, obscure weights and measures.

(* see what I did there?

)

And there have been countless imperial-measure errors resulting in lost satellites etc. so that point is completely void - in fact, I've only ever heard anecdotes of mistakes resulting from imperial or conversion of imperial to metric - never anything about a "factor of 10" in simple metric calculations.

You obviously don't actually have to calculate anything related to physics for a living.

Auchmithie · Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:01 pm

speedbird73 wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:

The Imperial system is superior to metric

How exactly is the imperial system less vulnerable to mistakes?

The Germans favour the metric system. The Germans are The Bad Guys. Ergo the metric system is bad. Keep up now!

zeke · Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:47 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
The fuel debate is about 4-5,000 lbs at most.

There is no debate, you are in a fantasy world.

Spyhunter wrote:
Zeke, with respect, has zeroed in on the official Malaysian data and treated it as accurate, but there is every reason to doubt it.

Yes the official factual report, who would have thought of looking at the official report as source. The official report only has had the contributions from all the surrounding countries, and countries that participated in the search, it has had the engine/airframe manufacturer, FAA/NTSB, CAA/AAIB, ATSB, Imrasat, military and civilian radars data.

To ignore such an official report when it is the subject of significant peer review by experts in the field is the definition of a person without a sound mind.

Spyhunter wrote:
The 108,200 lb figure on Wiki wasn't just made up, i.e. there appear to be at least two fuel uplift figures in circulation based on nominally credible sources.

Which is 49.1 tonnes. You are absolutely clueless on the difference between the uplift figure and and the flight plan fuel figure, the difference is simple, it is the taxi fuel. Taxi fuel is not included in trip fuel, we generally use 500-800 kg of taxi fuel for a wide-body. There is absolutely no doubt at all on the arrival fuel from the previous sector, and the amount of fuel uplifted. This is the reason why aircraft have a ramp weight and a takeoff weight, the difference is taxi fuel.

Spyhunter wrote:
My point about the price of Jet 1 being around $120 a barrel in Q1 2014 has not been responded to - people are assuming one-third reserves, which is current airline practice, but with respect are overlooking the steep decline in the price of Jet 1 from Q3 2014, which in turn led to a relaxation of airline fuel policies. My opinion is that Malaysian's bean counters were keeping a close eye on fuel costs in March 2014.

The only person suggesting 1/3 reserves is yourself. They had the trip fuel to PEK, alternate fuel for HGH, and 30 minutes fixed reserve. Bog standard in accordance with ICAO procedures.

Spyhunter wrote:
Radar data out of Chinese client states has to be viewed with suspicion when dealing with a shoot-down incident involving the PLA Navy. Thailand in 2014 was under heavy Chinese influence, ditto Malaysia and Indonesia, the latter two being Chinese client states. The Chinese are aggressive and have a lengthy history of interfering with regional neighbours. It is telling that two of the neighbours which China has invaded, Vietnam and India, do NOT support the radar data being pushed out by KL, Bangkok and Jakarta. Peking carries a lot of clout in Canberra too, since they are Australia's biggest customer for minerals. Their external intelligence service (CSIS) has been buying up or blackmailing Aussie 'pollies' for years, and arranged the assassination of Harold Holt,who sensibly wanted to increase Australian involvement in Vietnam.

More crap, no evidence here, move on.

Spyhunter wrote:
Research overnight, in response to Zeke's request for more information on the radar systems at Car Nicobar (CarNic), has thrown up two articles by Indian aviation expert Captain A Ranganathan in The Hindu in March 2014. Captain Ranganathan had heard that the CarNic radars were switched off at night, like those of Port Blair. However, with respect, his information was probably out of date.

Produce the evidence.

Spyhunter wrote:
Its radar had recently been upgraded, with its existing Rohini system being supplemented with the excellent Israeli-developed Arudhra Medium Power Radar, an advanced Active Phased Array system.

Where is the evidence that they have deployed a 4D radar to the island. Which of the radars on the Chinese/Pakistan boarder did they remove to put it there, and why would they more it from where there is a real threat ?

The Rohini radar is a truck mounted mobile radar with a maximum range of around 100 nm.

Spyhunter wrote:
Painting a 777-sized target at 229 nm, Zeke's figure, which I accept with respect, bearing in mind that radar performance can vary, would easily be achievable by an Arudhra.

Its simple maths, the curvature of the earth prevents detection beyond that at that altitude. https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

Spyhunter wrote:
I don't see it shutting it down at night, although I am sure it did in sleepier times, when it just had a helo detachment.

All they have there is a couple of helicopters, anything is is done on a temporary transit or exercises which requires tanker support.

Spyhunter wrote:
I believe the Port Campbell naval base, also part of ANC, also has air search radar. More to the point India's powerful Eastern Naval Command (ENC) had some 50 surface vessels in 2014, which are regularly deployed within the ANC sea control area. It is highly unlikely that no Indian warship was present in the ANC sea control area on the night of 7th & 8th March 2014.

What about the 12 friendly nations that were involved with the Thai naval exercises at the time ?

They also tracked the aircraft.

Spyhunter wrote:
What has been proposed isn't a 270 magnetic or thereabouts course west of Penang, but a series of doglegs to avoid radar, via VAMPI, GIVAL, MAPSA, MINAJ (? for the last letter) and IGREX.

There was no avoiding radar, it was tracked on radar the very reason why we know where it went. It is also the reason we know your crackpot claim that it was shot down with a SAM in the south china sea is absolute rubbish.

Spyhunter wrote:
This all burns fuel and points up a fatal flaw in the SIO theory, with respect: a flight-path avoiding radar requires more fuel than MH370 had remaining at the time of departure from the flight-plan even on the most generous figure and a flight-path taking the shortest, othodromic, route to the SIO from a turning point close to the Sumatran coast, with a fairly direct route from the SCS, would have brought MH370 within range of radar stations which did not paint it.

What was the distance flown, produce a number. Provide the evidence to support your claims.

BTW, you would think that Boeing and RR would have said something by now if it was impossible for the aircraft to fly that far with the fuel load it had ? Is there some massive conspiracy involving thousands of people at Boeing and RR along with the AAIB and NTSB who are also involved with the investigation ?

777Jet · Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:04 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
I haven't been following the developments about MH370 so forgive me if this doesn't quite fit the known information. Several posters have stated that because the flaps were down the pilot clearly intended a controlled ditching...I will offer three other reasons why a pilot might put the flaps down...

1. To get down quickly...if you wanted the express lane to the surface from FLXXX a pilot might put the gear and flaps out for extra drag...push the nose over and roll off the lift.

2. If you were in an intentional ditching scenario the GPWS "too low gear" or "too low flaps" might cause a pilot to put the gear and flaps out either out of habit or just to shut the system up. It's a pretty jarring warning/annoying even for a rogue pilot in his final moments.

3. To fly slow...if I wanted to evade detection after just hijacking a 777...i'd duck down low and slow way down. They'd be looking for a jet in the flight levels going 500 i'd be down at 5,000 feet doing 130.

If the flaps were down, or flaperon lowered, on MH370, they would have had to have been lowered at the end otherwise the extra drag over so many hours would not have allowed MH370 to fly until the time of the final ping. So, the flaperon was not lowered early due to some kind of accident because if so, MH370 would not have flown for as long as it did. If the flaperon was lowered, it had to have been lowered near the very end of the flight given the fuel numbers and proposed duration based on the final ping. If the plane was over the open ocean and was going down, and the flaperon / flaps were lowered it only means the plane was going to be ditched. Whether or not it was good pilots dealing with an unprecedented situation, or a rogue pilot with an evil agenda, if that flaperon was lowered it was lowered by a human at the end of the flight in order to prepare for ditching. It couldn't have been lowered 7 or so hours earlier. Of course, I trust the Inmarsat data.

777Jet · Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:23 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Each time we enter into these investigations, there is one or more posters who have a very similar writing style. I'm not saying that they are the same person or that they are functioning in unison. However, having read Spyhunter's interesting and detailed posts, I will say with respect that they are very similar to those of other members who in my opinion have an agenda. Whether that is to get attention, earn some cash, throw people off track, spread disinformation, or just to feel like the smart guy, the approach is the same.

Honestly, I'm surprised time and time again that they feel they are convincing others of their point of view. I would think at some point they'd change up the approach to make it more believable, rather than elaborate on unrelated details, ignore facts, praise the Russians, say something doesn't matter when it goes against their agenda but that something does matter when it supports their agenda, and on and on and on.

YoungMans was the only regular MH370 contributor pushing the conspiracy theory / spoofed data / pro-Russian type stuff and who had a similar writing style. I'm not sure who you think could be posting under another name, but I can assure you that it is not YoungMans. He is on a long road trip and sends regular emails. You wouldn't be surprised where he is. Also, he wouldn't claim to be somebody he is not - especially somebody like SpyHunter. Anyway, he didn't have an agenda; he just seemed to align with the more conspiracy theories / bad guys / sophisticated operation type stuff. So who is pushing their agenda as someone else? NAV30? FWIW I caught out Oxymorph aka Sipadan (even though we both were in the rogue pilot camp) and I have a feeling they are back in this thread under a different name yet again (not SpyHunter).

7BOEING7 · Tue Aug 23, 2016 3:38 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
I haven't been following the developments about MH370 so forgive me if this doesn't quite fit the known information. Several posters have stated that because the flaps were down the pilot clearly intended a controlled ditching...I will offer three other reasons why a pilot might put the flaps down...

1. To get down quickly...if you wanted the express lane to the surface from FLXXX a pilot might put the gear and flaps out for extra drag...push the nose over and roll off the lift.

Actually he'd only put the gear down, pop the speedbrakes and descend at max gear down speed. The flaps won't come out above 20,000ft and you need to slow down to do that. Time wise to the deck, it's gear/brakes. Distance wise is another discussion.

N14AZ · Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:31 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
The Imperial system is superior to metric - it's the system which took NASA to the Moon and back

Waow, now I am really disapointed. You want us to believe that AF447 was shot down and the investigation report is just the result of conspiracy but you ignore the mother of all conspiracy theories!?!? ;-)

buzzard302 · Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:38 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
The Imperial system is superior to metric - it's the system which took NASA to the Moon and back

Waow, now I am really disapointed. You want us to believe that AF447 was shot down and the investigation report is just the result of conspiracy but you ignore the mother of all conspiracy theories!?!?

Exactly. We all know the moon landing was staged on a photography set for the purposes of beating Russia. But I have a hard time believing that AF447 was shot down and covered up. You would think at least one person involved in the cover up may have slipped and revealed something in the years following.

PlanesNTrains · Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:34 am

777Jet wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Each time we enter into these investigations, there is one or more posters who have a very similar writing style. I'm not saying that they are the same person or that they are functioning in unison. However, having read Spyhunter's interesting and detailed posts, I will say with respect that they are very similar to those of other members who in my opinion have an agenda. Whether that is to get attention, earn some cash, throw people off track, spread disinformation, or just to feel like the smart guy, the approach is the same.

Honestly, I'm surprised time and time again that they feel they are convincing others of their point of view. I would think at some point they'd change up the approach to make it more believable, rather than elaborate on unrelated details, ignore facts, praise the Russians, say something doesn't matter when it goes against their agenda but that something does matter when it supports their agenda, and on and on and on.

YoungMans was the only regular MH370 contributor pushing the conspiracy theory / spoofed data / pro-Russian type stuff and who had a similar writing style. I'm not sure who you think could be posting under another name, but I can assure you that it is not YoungMans. He is on a long road trip and sends regular emails. You wouldn't be surprised where he is. Also, he wouldn't claim to be somebody he is not - especially somebody like SpyHunter. Anyway, he didn't have an agenda; he just seemed to align with the more conspiracy theories / bad guys / sophisticated operation type stuff. So who is pushing their agenda as someone else? NAV30? FWIW I caught out Oxymorph aka Sipadan (even though we both were in the rogue pilot camp) and I have a feeling they are back in this thread under a different name yet again (not SpyHunter).

I'm not referring to anyone specific or even in these threads. I am just commenting in general on A.net. My point wasn't so much to call out any A.net posters but rather to point out that some who would appear to have an agenda seem to have a very similar approach to these discussions. It might be coincidental, but I tend to think it's because (for a few) they are getting a financial compensation of some sort for doing so. Whether it's just their job or whether they are selling books or some other reason, I couldn't care less. They are twisting things for their own reasons to the detriment of this board and to the harm of the families affected by these tragedies.

I will say this - the style is awfully similar to the pro-Russia stance by a few posters in the MH17 threads.

PlanesNTrains · Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:43 am

Spyhunter wrote:
The fuel debate is about 4-5,000 lbs at most. Of course I am aware of the need for diversion reserves, but I want to arrive at hard data. Zeke, with respect, has zeroed in on the official Malaysian data and treated it as accurate, but there is every reason to doubt it. ......... My opinion is that Malaysian's bean counters were keeping a close eye on fuel costs in March 2014.

The Imperial system is superior to metric - it's the system which took NASA to the Moon and back and won two world wars. It's easier to use and less vulnerable to mistakes by a factor of 10, which tend to be big ones. Surely the aviation community hasn't forgotten the Gimli Glider incident?

Radar data out of Chinese client states has to be viewed with suspicion when dealing with a shoot-down incident involving the PLA Navy.

Captain Ranganathan had heard that the CarNic radars were switched off at night, like those of Port Blair. However, with respect, his information was probably out of date.

CarNic is now home to 37 Wing, and has an air defence unit. The IAF have deployed Su-30s there on exercise and the base itself is commanded by a 1-star, Air Commodore T K Sinha in 2014 I think. I don't see it shutting it down at night,

I believe the Port Campbell naval base, also part of ANC, also has air search radar. More to the point India's powerful Eastern Naval Command (ENC) had some 50 surface vessels in 2014, which are regularly deployed within the ANC sea control area. It is highly unlikely that no Indian warship was present in the ANC sea control area on the night of 7th & 8th March 2014.

With respect, what I see are some basic premises that you then add elaborate - often irrelevant - details to in order to bolster your position,while at the same time discounting what others share, what's been reported, norms in the industry, etc.

In short, you have one position and are presenting your case as if this were a debate where being persuasive might be all you need in order to win the argument. Unfortunately people are able to read between the lines, see the broader context of the discussion, consider the input of long time valued members, and read reports on their own. They don't need the synopsis for the next novel - they want the truth.

That's just my opinion and I certainly respect that there is a lot of knowledge littered within your posts. I just believe it's there to enhance your credibility but really it just seems to be a distracting sideshow to what could be a very simple discussion. I don't care about China having someone assassinated or who you knew 20 years ago. What does that have to do with the radar tracks, debris found, etc?

Unflug · Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:06 am

Dave, totally agree with your analysis. I must say that I have a big respect for the patience you and others show in this discussion.

It's interesting to note the similarities in writing and behaviour - even more as in the case of Spyhunter I think we are actually dealing with a new member.

Spyhunter seems to be Michael Shrimpton, author of a book titled Spyhunter. He was convicted for false bomb threat after he claimed that the Germans planned a nuclear attack on the Olympics and/or the queen in 2012.

Some search results for the lazy guys ;-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mpics.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/

https://www.davidicke.com/article/13349 ... everywhere

777Jet · Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:16 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
777Jet wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Each time we enter into these investigations, there is one or more posters who have a very similar writing style. I'm not saying that they are the same person or that they are functioning in unison. However, having read Spyhunter's interesting and detailed posts, I will say with respect that they are very similar to those of other members who in my opinion have an agenda. Whether that is to get attention, earn some cash, throw people off track, spread disinformation, or just to feel like the smart guy, the approach is the same.

Honestly, I'm surprised time and time again that they feel they are convincing others of their point of view. I would think at some point they'd change up the approach to make it more believable, rather than elaborate on unrelated details, ignore facts, praise the Russians, say something doesn't matter when it goes against their agenda but that something does matter when it supports their agenda, and on and on and on.

YoungMans was the only regular MH370 contributor pushing the conspiracy theory / spoofed data / pro-Russian type stuff and who had a similar writing style. I'm not sure who you think could be posting under another name, but I can assure you that it is not YoungMans. He is on a long road trip and sends regular emails. You wouldn't be surprised where he is. Also, he wouldn't claim to be somebody he is not - especially somebody like SpyHunter. Anyway, he didn't have an agenda; he just seemed to align with the more conspiracy theories / bad guys / sophisticated operation type stuff. So who is pushing their agenda as someone else? NAV30? FWIW I caught out Oxymorph aka Sipadan (even though we both were in the rogue pilot camp) and I have a feeling they are back in this thread under a different name yet again (not SpyHunter).

I'm not referring to anyone specific or even in these threads. I am just commenting in general on A.net. My point wasn't so much to call out any A.net posters but rather to point out that some who would appear to have an agenda seem to have a very similar approach to these discussions. It might be coincidental, but I tend to think it's because (for a few) they are getting a financial compensation of some sort for doing so. Whether it's just their job or whether they are selling books or some other reason, I couldn't care less. They are twisting things for their own reasons to the detriment of this board and to the harm of the families affected by these tragedies.

I will say this - the style is awfully similar to the pro-Russia stance by a few posters in the MH17 threads.

Agreed 100%, especially about the harm some of the nonsense posted, especially concerning AF447, could do to the families of victims if they read this stuff.

777Jet · Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:18 am

Unflug wrote:
Dave, totally agree with your analysis. I must say that I have a big respect for the patience you and others show in this discussion.

It's interesting to note the similarities in writing and behaviour - even more as in the case of Spyhunter I think we are actually dealing with a new member.

Spyhunter seems to be Michael Shrimpton, author of a book titled Spyhunter. He was convicted for false bomb threat after he claimed that the Germans planned a nuclear attack on the Olympics and/or the queen in 2012.

Some search results for the lazy guys

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mpics.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/shrimpton/

https://www.davidicke.com/article/13349 ... everywhere

Already been posted / discussed, for the other lazy guys

Unflug · Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:09 am

777Jet wrote:
Already been posted / discussed, for the other lazy guys

Sorry about that - must admit that I didn't read the whole thread...

zeke · Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:29 am

Unflug wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Already been posted / discussed, for the other lazy guys

Sorry about that - must admit that I didn't read the whole thread...

To be fair I think the mods deleted all the information relation to the criminal charges, imprisonment, and the Bar Standards Board matters.

http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/11/bar-r ... barrister/

RIXrat · Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:05 am

Thanks PlanesNTrains for bringing up the Russian trollers subject, which in the last few years has grown substantially. While the West, after the end of the Cold War, had put the propaganda war on the back burner, the Russians established a work force in the hundreds in Moscow and St. Petersburg to troll Western web sites and voice their view of world affairs. Nothing wrong with that, except when one distorts the facts.

InsideMan · Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:16 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
Thank you Aerolineas! The Germans have been conning us since WW2 - they never shut down their intelligence. China is a communist dictatorship. I see that no one has an answerto my IAFB Car Nicobar point.

very funny read. But contrary to my Initial belief that he is a very capable troll he seems to be a lunatic indeed.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mpics.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mi ... ed-5116584

for more on his mysterius DVD that noone has ever heard of.....

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/22 ... erman-dvd/

InsideMan · Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:18 pm

Unflug wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Already been posted / discussed, for the other lazy guys

Sorry about that - must admit that I didn't read the whole thread...

ooops, add me to the bunch :-)

Spyhunter · Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:25 am

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, InsideMan! None of those journalists was professional enough to speak to me and their coverage, inevitably, was one-sided. Substantial fresh evidence has emerged,some of it supplied, by MI5, and the convictions have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

As it happens I'm a member of British Mensa - we don't see many lunatics at our gatherings!

Not sure if Buzzard was joking or not, however the Apollo missions were most certainly not faked. At the risk of repeating myself I have met two of the Apollo astronauts, General Tom Stafford USAF and Captain Jim Lovell USN, both men of great courage and integrity. The idea that they lied about going around the Moon is just silly, indeed their spacecraft were tracked there and back.

Not sure what's happened to my post yesterday, but I was responding on the Car Nicobar point. The argument here is that IAFB Car Nicobar radars are shut down at night, like the radars at Port Blair Airport, but I think this highly unlikely. Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) was the first Indian joint command and it's run by a 3-star, whilst the base itself has a 1-star. It's no longer just a helicopter base, and is the southernmost air base in India. There may also be air surveillance radars at the naval base at Campbell Bay, and there were bound to have been Indian warships within radar range. Eastern Naval Command (ENC) had some 50 surface vessels on strength in 2014. This is a sensitive area.

zeke · Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:41 am

Again zero evidence.

More baseless claims.

Prove they have the 4D radar capability.

Furthermore, prove the aircraft went that far north.

Still waiting for you to tell us how far the aircraft flew. You made numerous claims it could not make it to the search area, tell us all how far it could go.

Btw Mensa like any part of society has all types, including those suffering from mental illness. A person is not more or less susceptible to mental illness based upon passing the Mensa entrance test. The test itself has not shown any scientific basis for causing mental illness. There is no logic to your claim.

777Jet · Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:17 am

zeke wrote:
Unflug wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Already been posted / discussed, for the other lazy guys

Sorry about that - must admit that I didn't read the whole thread...

To be fair I think the mods deleted all the information relation to the criminal charges, imprisonment, and the Bar Standards Board matters.

http://www.legalcheek.com/2014/11/bar-r ... barrister/

Not post #121, which was the first post on the criminal charges (just saying, to be fair)

777Jet · Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:18 am

777Jet wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
In response to KaiTak747, I didn't claim to be a current academic. I taught on the Masters in Strategic Intelligence course at the American Military University from 2007 until 2010, when I took up intelligence writing full-time. I was teaching mostly intelligence or military professionals.

I'm Spyhunter, by the way - the title of my book - not Spycatcher. That book was written by a friend of a friend, Peter Wright.

"Spyhunter: The Secret History of German Intelligence" by Michael Shrimpton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton

First line: ""Michael Shrimpton (born 9 March 1957) is a former British barrister and immigration judge noted for his conspiracy theories and hoaxes.""

..........."noted for his conspiracy theories and hoaxes"...........

More from wiki: ""Criminal convictions

On 19 and 20 April 2012, Shrimpton contacted Defence Secretary Philip Dunne and MP David Lidington to warn them of an impending attack against London. According to Shrimpton, a German intelligence agency had stolen a nuclear warhead from a sunken Russian submarine and planted it somewhere in London. The agency was supposedly planning to detonate the warhead during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Dunne and Lidington referred the reports to the Olympic Security Team. Though Shrimpton was already known to various police forces as "an intelligence nuisance", they were obliged to take these latest reports seriously. When they were confirmed to be hoaxes, Shrimpton was arrested at his home in Wendover on charges of communicating false information with intent. The case went to trial, with Shrimpton representing himself. He was convicted on two counts in 2014, and in February 2015 was sentenced to a twelve-month term of imprisonment.[7][6][8]

While investigating the bomb hoax case, police discovered Shrimpton to be in possession of a memory stick containing forty indecent images of children. This resulted in yet another criminal case, with Shrimpton being convicted and sentenced to a three-year supervision order and a five-year sexual offences prevention order. He was also required to sign the Violent and Sex Offender Register. Shrimpton unsuccessfully appealed against the conviction, claiming that local police had planted the pornographic images in his home in order to discredit him.[5]""

Enough said.

777Jet · Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:30 am

Spyhunter wrote:
Don't believe everything you read in the papers, InsideMan! None of those journalists was professional enough to speak to me and their coverage, inevitably, was one-sided. Substantial fresh evidence has emerged,some of it supplied, by MI5, and the convictions have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

As it happens I'm a member of British Mensa - we don't see many lunatics at our gatherings!

Not sure if Buzzard was joking or not, however the Apollo missions were most certainly not faked. At the risk of repeating myself I have met two of the Apollo astronauts, General Tom Stafford USAF and Captain Jim Lovell USN, both men of great courage and integrity. The idea that they lied about going around the Moon is just silly, indeed their spacecraft were tracked there and back.

Your claim that the indecent 'images' were planted might be true (if so I hope you get the justice that you are owed), but you also say the MH370 debris, the AF447 box, etc, were also planted. 'Planted' is a very convenient excuse, for almost any matter. I don't agree, therefore "it was planted". Regarding MH370, the item in the SCS was never confirmed as even coming from a plane! It could be a hatch from a boat or whatever - MH370 is not the only wreck on the planet! How many items washing up around the Indian Ocean will it take for you to possibly change your idea on what happened, or will they all have been planted? If they find the fuselage mostly intact one day at the bottom of the SIO will that have been planted too? Are you going to suggest that MH370 wreckage could be 'planted' after being relocated from MH17? When (what will it take for) does the 'it was planted' line end with MH370 for you?

BTW I've also met Jim Lovell; I lived very close to him in Horseshoe Bay, TX for a long time. Indeed he is a man of courage and integrity - what he did to get Apollo 13 home was amazing.

IIRC the other poster wasn't questioning the Apollo missions going into space and around the moon. He was questioning the landing on the moon itself. Big difference.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net