• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:31 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What makes this so different a 777 landing at low speed in the water is certainly do able.

Based on what?

...go ahead, tell us all about the last time that someone was able to land a widebody jet on sea water (very different than a flat river) WITHOUT causing a breakup that killed nearly half the people on board or more?

We'll wait.


The BA 772 that landed short of the runway at LHR, and even more so the Asiana 772 than landed into the extremely hard sea wall at the end of the SFO runway, provide an indication of how tough the 777 is.

Just because the following specifically "someone was able to land a widebody jet on sea water (very different than a flat river) WITHOUT causing a breakup that killed nearly half the people on board or more?" has yet to happen does not mean it is not possible that a 777 could be ditched well enough on the open ocean to remain intact enough or in large enough pieces to mostly sink leaving behind very little debris... A lot of the ditched Ethiopian 767 remained in large pieces too - so if that happened in the middle of the ocean and nobody arrived on the scene until two plus weeks later the large pieces would have sunk and the small pieces would be long gone...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:37 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Captain Zaharie loathed the ruling government and is an ardent supporter of the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. In fact his niece is Anwar's daughter-in-law, and he's known to some of the top brass in Anwar's political party so he's more than just a typical political supporter. He had campaigned for Anwar's party during the previous general election the year before, when Anwar's faction won the popular vote but lacked the seat count to form a government. So the seeds of resentment is certainly there. But the straw that broke the camel's back was the fact that ON THE DAY OF THE FLIGHT, the Malaysian Supreme Court overturned Anwar's acquittal over charges of sodomy which his faction said was politically motivated. Therein lies the motive.

IF the captain did do it purposely, he didn't do it to kill himself. He did it to be a martyr for his political cause, hence no signs of suicide are necessary.


I agree with you on that point.

If the Captain did it, it was not a suicide attempt; it was underpinned by the political reason / events you mentioned (that anybody following this should be aware of).

He did it for a political reason.

People proposing that the Captain did it crowd are claiming it was pilot suicide are fools that cannot read nor comprehend.

This had nothing to do with suicide, nor mass murder, but both did occur if the Captain did do it despite political reasons being the motive.
Last edited by 777Jet on Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 1:47 pm

KaiTak747 wrote:
Spycatcher - you are making some very bold claims here. But, if you are an academic as you claim you to be, then you should know that claims without evidence are not facts, just claims. Unless you can provide some evidence, your theories are worthless. I've googled a few of the claims you have made, and unsurprisingly nothing has showed up.

I cannot for a second believe that AF447, MH370 or MH17 were shot down and covered up.


AF447 was not shot down.

The fantasy stories you are now reading in this thread (and in other places on this once good site) now are a result of this website recently lowering its standards and opening up membership to all by making it free.

Now anybody can join and post garbage - the garbage you are referring to.

In the past many of the trolls would have been put off by the small joining fee.

Everybody knows that AF447 went down because of incompetent pilots with poor communication and bad attitudes being left alone in the cockpit at the wrong time - if only the experienced Captain waited in there for a bit longer but no, passing through the approaching thunderstorm and ITCZ was less important than getting to his girlfriend...

BTW sorry for multiple posts but I haven't yet worked out how to quote different posts in the same reply, can't say I've tried either ;)
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
UALWN
Posts: 2185
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 3:11 pm

777Jet wrote:
Most of the others with more fantasy sounding theories stopped contributing because unlike you, they took the opportunity to stop making fools of themselves.

Yeah, please, keep insulting, keep your tone, "scumbag airlines" and all.

Now the "captain-did-it-crowd" wakes up because he had flown a similar route in his simulator, together with a 1000 others, all of them deleted. He had not touched the simulator in 6 months, by the way. Neither had he posted in Facebook (another of the so-called "red flags") for 6 months. But hey whatever. It's us, the skeptical, who are "making fools of ourselves." Sure.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
spyglass
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:17 pm

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:17 pm

That plane didn't crash, it was taken. Still intact. Too many factors negate it crashing/ditching. Wheelhouse crew to blame? No. Cabin crew & certain psgrs? Yes. The reason for this was to capture the craft intact. It will be used for a future incident. I put a multi-paragraph entry on this site a couple yrs ago explaining how it was done, but hate typing, so not going into details again.....
I remember when......a plane trip was a big deal.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:23 pm

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.

You are making one of the basic mistakes non-intelligence professionals make when dealing with intelligence, which is to demand proof and then dismiss any claim where proof is not provided. Raw data is hardly ever revealed into the public domain, and when it is people often lose their lives. Geopolitics is a brutal business and not conducted according to the rules which apply in a running-down case in the Uxbridge County Court. The proof you seek on AF447 and MH370 eg consists partly of satellite data, which you aren't going to see and might have difficulty interpreting in any event. Photo-interpretation requires specialist training or experience.

These are not criticisms by the way - you are clearly an aviation, not an intelligence professional, and therefore cannot be expected to understand the rarefied world of intelligence. Most intelligence professionals put in a cockpit would make basic mistakes, like trying to adjust rate of descent with the throttle.

You are however polite, and have done some checking on my claims, which is good. 777Jet is simply offensive, with respect, and remarkably free in his criticisms of professional pilots, which rather suggests that he isn't one. The pilots of AF447 weren't incompetent and there is no reason to suppose that Captain Dubois, a pilot with nearly 11,000 hours in his logbook, who started flying for Air Inter in 1988 (which means he might have flown the Dassault Mercure) left the flight-deck.

The only evidence that he left the flight-deck comes from the CVR, but there is no audit trail linking this CVR to the CVR on AF447, indeed we know it's been faked (easily done by an intelligence agency, either digitally re-assembling recordings of the real pilots or using actors - there is no independent voice-recognition match) since it conflicts with the satellite imagery.

There are however two crucial pieces of evidence on AF447 and MH370 in the public domain - the diesel fuel slicks. The aviation-illiterate media discounted both as Jet-1, but Jet-1 doesn't stay on the surface. It's a light fuel and disperses readily. There was no surface target in the vicinity of either shoot-down, indeed no surface vessel was within visual or radar range of either airliner. Had there been the shoot-down order would not have been given, because of the possibility of witnesses. Each slick is evidence of a sub-smash near the flightpath of both aircraft.

There were in fact three eye-witnesses to the shoot-down of MH370, one a Kiwi offshore oil-rig worker. Their evidence has been discounted but there is no reason to, a classic case of people being fooled by the Big Lie technique.

In both cases we also have powerful anti-submarine assets in the area, a Breguet Atlantique in the case of 447 and the USS Pinckney, with her SH-60, in the case of 370. The Iranian Kilo was hit, or had a warhead detonate close her hull as she deployed counter-measures (typically noise-makers or cavitation-makers designed to fool the homing sensors on the incoming, which typically home on the screw(s)). She made it to the covert Iranian sub-base in the north of the Comoros Islands, tragically leading to a further Airbus loss on an overflight for the French. The Chinese Kilo was lost with all hands, after which the Pinckney, God Bless her, returned to Singapore, job done.

We also have wreckage on the surface in the South China Sea. It's a 777 passenger escape hatch. Boeing couldn't narrow it down to a -200 ER, but they didn't need to. There were no other 777s lost over the South China Sea that day.

I cannot give you evidence, I can only give you the facts. You can accept or reject them, but my purpose in coming onto this site was to alert the aviation community and try and save further losses. It's not easy - pilots traditionally tend to reject suggestions of deliberate action to bring down an airliner as conspiracy theories and typically will fall for any old nonsense, as long as bears some sort of official stamp. That's what makes it easy for the Bad Guys to bring aircraft down. The first large-scale sabotage campaign was against the DH-86A in Australia. We're still seeing 'mystery' losses 8 decades later.

DVD stands for the Deutscher Verteidigungs Dienst, the German black agency set up in the autumn of 1943 by Admiral Canaris. Its HQ is at Dachau, Bavaria, about a klick from the old concentration camp. It took over the Abwehr, the Gestapo, Abwehr assets in the SD and German military intelligence agencies including the B-Dienst signals service of the Kriegsmarine in 1945. Canaris was its first director. Both he and the head of the Gestapo faked their deaths in 1945. Canaris in fact survived until 1978, although he was quite ill after 1975. He has two graves, the real one being in the former East Germany.

They were first exposed in print by the journalist Christopher Story FRSA, who was murdered in 2010. The first detailed expose was in Spyhunter.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:50 pm

I think we're seeing a reincarnated Ceilidh here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shrimpton
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:54 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
I don't think it's a non-sequitur given that I based my opinions on information gleaned from people in the know, people who were actually involved in the entire event.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Given that my sources are first hand, people who were ACTUALLY INVOLVED in MH370's crisis management group, I stand by my statement.

So once again you claim that you must be believed because (you claim) you are an authority on this subject.
For all I or anyone else here knows, you are a crazy person posting from the Tulsa public library. Your claim of authority carries no weight on the anonymous internet.

Yet if I were to assume that you actually are connected with the Malaysian regime then I would be faced with a different reason not to give your testimony any weight.
If you really are connected to that regime, asking me to use you as an authority is a bit like asking Micky Mouse what he thinks of Donald.
You can drop that line of logic right now, it will never sell.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
As for the so-called blackout - ever considered that they chose to slow down the pace of information release because they've nothing new to report?

They had plenty to report, they were sitting on the knowledge that the plane had crossed over the Malaysian peninsula and turned westbound. They allowed multiple nations to continue searching where the plane could not have been for eight days. India didn't suspend its search until March 16th as it waited for Malaysia to say whether it should be searching at all. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... w-ups.html

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
No, we should re-hash it because old incorrect facts are being bandied about over & over again. Based on the 9th March press conference which IIRC was the only PC that he was involved in at that point, what he said to a question by CNN's Jim Clancy was that there is an INDICATION that the plane might have turned back. That was the official response of the Royal Malaysian Air Force at that time.
If you want to re-hash anything the burden is on you to drag it up and make your case. I don't offhand know anything about this Clancy interview but I agree that Daud was saying that the plane might have turned back from day one. There's no debate there.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
But a local reporter had reported that General Rodzali went on the record stating that military radar tracked MH370, without proving that he had actually interviewed General Rodzali & or that he had stated it on the record. Maybe he had gotten an unofficial source but screwed up by attributing said quote to the General. Maybe the General had stated his assumptions on the basis that it was off the record while awaiting confirmation that the blip that the found by checking the records was MH370. However as there is no proof that General Rodzali had actually gone out to make that statement as a form of public release, he was correct in stating that he did not make such statements.

I don't know what point about this you are trying to make but the story in a nutshell is that on March 10th Rodzali Daud gave an interview to a local journalist where he said that 9MMR0 was last tracked in the vicinity of Pulau Perak, at 2.40 a.m. on Saturday. This story was picked up by many news outlets internationally at the time. The next day Daud denied that statement. If you want to believe that a local journalist made up a story (that later turned out to be true) about an interview with the Malaysian AF chief that's your prerogative. But you're not going to sway my belief that the journalist was telling the truth and Daud was lying. The story fits hand in glove with Hishammuddin's March 13th and 14th press conferences where he categorically denied that the plane was seen to be flying for another hour after IGARI. As it turns out, the time of 2:40 quoted in the story turned out to be only 18 minutes off of what was actual time of last sighting, do you think the Berita Harian journalist was clairvoyant?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Remember at that same time the press reported that one of the Iranians flying on a fake passport looks like soccer player Mario Balotelli on the premise of this statement by the head of the Malaysian DCA: ""Do you know a footballer by the name of Balotelli?".
What point is this supposed to make?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Note also that General Rodzali did not retract his statement about the possibility of a turn back.
Also note that General Rodzali stopped giving press conferences and interviews after March 11th when Hishammuddin took over the PR function from the military.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
At night Malaysian airspace would have been full of planes heading to Europe flying not just from KUL but also SIN & CGK as well, not to mention North Asian flights & early morning cargo flights coming into KUL. There is no certainty that officials had actually watched the plane in real time, and even if they did, they may not have been able to identify anything different about one blip in a sea of blips. That is why they had to corroborate it with other sources, which had been alluded to in the 9th March press conference.
If you want to see how much traffic was in the air that night you can use FR24 and look at any recent Friday night, there certainly was no "sea" of blips, it would have been more like a dozen that night. And this was no ordinary night, this was the night one of their airliners went missing.

The early press releases and information releases betray the fact that the flight was tracked in real time, or viewed very soon after; several of them allude to the 2:40 time later used by Daud others mention a "turnaround". For example: a press statement by Malaysia Airline Systems Bhd, Subang on March 8th: Air Traffic Control reported that it lost contact with Flight MH370 at 2.40 am on Saturday. On the 9th, Daud told a media conference: "We are trying to make sense of this, the military radar indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by civilian radar."

Also, the Vietnamese radar saw it turn back in real time: Vietnam’s deputy minister of transport, Pham Quy Tieu): "We informed Malaysia on the day we lost contact with the flight that we noticed the flight turned back west but Malaysia did not respond," http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... final-path

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
In the early days of the crisis there is bound to be confusion, even more so for an agency not prepared to handle the intense media spotlight. But to take pockets of confusion and build a case of an active cover-up is just stretching things.
There was a thick blanket of confusion spread by the Malaysian government. They are still keeping the exact flight path of the plane for it's first hour of flight after turnaround under wraps.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12664
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 10:12 pm

777Jet wrote:
The BA 772 that landed short of the runway at LHR, and even more so the Asiana 772 than landed into the extremely hard sea wall at the end of the SFO runway, provide an indication of how tough the 777 is.

Which has nothing to do with what's being asked. :roll:

777Jet wrote:
Just because the following specifically "someone was able to land a widebody jet on sea water (very different than a flat river) WITHOUT causing a breakup that killed nearly half the people on board or more?" has yet to happen does not mean it is not possible

THAT doesn't, but the fact that it's never been accomplished at any time that it's been attempted, show's that it's more likely impossible with current eqp than not.

777Jet wrote:
the ditched Ethiopian 767

....is a rather odd incident to bring up as a retort, seeing as it conforms exactly to the original point:
a sea ditching attempt that killed 72% of the people on board.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Sun Aug 07, 2016 11:25 pm

LAX772LR wrote:

777Jet wrote:
Just because the following specifically "someone was able to land a widebody jet on sea water (very different than a flat river) WITHOUT causing a breakup that killed nearly half the people on board or more?" has yet to happen does not mean it is not possible

THAT doesn't, but the fact that it's never been accomplished at any time that it's been attempted, show's that it's more likely impossible with current eqp than not.

777Jet wrote:
the ditched Ethiopian 767

....is a rather odd incident to bring up as a retort, seeing as it conforms exactly to the original point:
a sea ditching attempt that killed 72% of the people on board.


The fact that's it's never been accomplished doesn't make it any less possible or impossible. Personally having flown both the 777 and the P-3 (where we were always practicing ditching), I would say that it's toally possible to ditch a 777 without ripping it apart.

As for the Ethiopian 767, at the time of the ditching to my understanding the Captain was getting plenty of assistance from the hijackers making a more survivable ditching very difficult.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:47 am

salttee wrote:
So once again you claim that you must be believed because (you claim) you are an authority on this subject.
For all I or anyone else here knows, you are a crazy person posting from the Tulsa public library. Your claim of authority carries no weight on the anonymous internet.

Yet if I were to assume that you actually are connected with the Malaysian regime then I would be faced with a different reason not to give your testimony any weight.
If you really are connected to that regime, asking me to use you as an authority is a bit like asking Micky Mouse what he thinks of Donald.
You can drop that line of logic right now, it will never sell


And you too are doing the exact same thing.

My conscience is clear. I've no beef in this but I'm all for setting the record straight. If you have no trouble believing unnamed sources that supports your supposition, why can't you open your mind up to similar sources that doesn't support your supposition.

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
As for the so-called blackout - ever considered that they chose to slow down the pace of information release because they've nothing new to report?

They had plenty to report, they were sitting on the knowledge that the plane had crossed over the Malaysian peninsula and turned westbound. They allowed multiple nations to continue searching where the plane could not have been for eight days. India didn't suspend its search until March 16th as it waited for Malaysia to say whether it should be searching at all. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... w-ups.html


As stated many times, they were cautious in waiting for the data to be corroborated. This is fairly consistent.

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
No, we should re-hash it because old incorrect facts are being bandied about over & over again. Based on the 9th March press conference which IIRC was the only PC that he was involved in at that point, what he said to a question by CNN's Jim Clancy was that there is an INDICATION that the plane might have turned back. That was the official response of the Royal Malaysian Air Force at that time.
If you want to re-hash anything the burden is on you to drag it up and make your case. I don't offhand know anything about this Clancy interview but I agree that Daud was saying that the plane might have turned back from day one. There's no debate there.


It was the 9th March press conference if you cared to look.

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
But a local reporter had reported that General Rodzali went on the record stating that military radar tracked MH370, without proving that he had actually interviewed General Rodzali & or that he had stated it on the record. Maybe he had gotten an unofficial source but screwed up by attributing said quote to the General. Maybe the General had stated his assumptions on the basis that it was off the record while awaiting confirmation that the blip that the found by checking the records was MH370. However as there is no proof that General Rodzali had actually gone out to make that statement as a form of public release, he was correct in stating that he did not make such statements.

I don't know what point about this you are trying to make but the story in a nutshell is that on March 10th Rodzali Daud gave an interview to a local journalist where he said that 9MMR0 was last tracked in the vicinity of Pulau Perak, at 2.40 a.m. on Saturday. This story was picked up by many news outlets internationally at the time. The next day Daud denied that statement. If you want to believe that a local journalist made up a story (that later turned out to be true) about an interview with the Malaysian AF chief that's your prerogative. But you're not going to sway my belief that the journalist was telling the truth and Daud was lying. The story fits hand in glove with Hishammuddin's March 13th and 14th press conferences where he categorically denied that the plane was seen to be flying for another hour after IGARI. As it turns out, the time of 2:40 quoted in the story turned out to be only 18 minutes off of what was actual time of last sighting, do you think the Berita Harian journalist was clairvoyant?

Here's the thing - we don't exactly know that Rodzali had knowingly given that interview. He may have spoken offhand based on his suppositions of the data. Note that I didn't say that the local journalist lied - only that the information he/she had gotten is not official. My stance is this, if it's not announced in a press release or a press conference then it is unofficial. And as such Rodzali's (just so you know, there are no surnames in Malay naming convention so by referring to General Rodzali as Daud you're actually referring to his father) action was consistent. To say that there is an attempt at a cover up is just conjecture.

As for Hishammuddin's press conference - his denial is also consistent with the story. They're still corroborating the details

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Remember at that same time the press reported that one of the Iranians flying on a fake passport looks like soccer player Mario Balotelli on the premise of this statement by the head of the Malaysian DCA: ""Do you know a footballer by the name of Balotelli?".
What point is this supposed to make?


That journalists, especially when covering high profile incidents such as this, are fallible.

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Note also that General Rodzali did not retract his statement about the possibility of a turn back.
Also note that General Rodzali stopped giving press conferences and interviews after March 11th when Hishammuddin took over the PR function from the military.


I beg to differ. Note the date on this video of a press conference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnx_ezdQNw

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
At night Malaysian airspace would have been full of planes heading to Europe flying not just from KUL but also SIN & CGK as well, not to mention North Asian flights & early morning cargo flights coming into KUL. There is no certainty that officials had actually watched the plane in real time, and even if they did, they may not have been able to identify anything different about one blip in a sea of blips. That is why they had to corroborate it with other sources, which had been alluded to in the 9th March press conference.
If you want to see how much traffic was in the air that night you can use FR24 and look at any recent Friday night, there certainly was no "sea" of blips, it would have been more like a dozen that night. And this was no ordinary night, this was the night one of their airliners went missing.


Malaysian airspace circa 2016 is different than Malaysian airspace circa 2014. For one MH no longer flies to Europe other than to London, nor do they still fly the redeye to Beijing that was once MH370.

salttee wrote:
The early press releases and information releases betray the fact that the flight was tracked in real time, or viewed very soon after; several of them allude to the 2:40 time later used by Daud others mention a "turnaround". For example: a press statement by Malaysia Airline Systems Bhd, Subang on March 8th: Air Traffic Control reported that it lost contact with Flight MH370 at 2.40 am on Saturday. On the 9th, Daud told a media conference: "We are trying to make sense of this, the military radar indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by civilian radar."


I believe this was explained previously that the early time stated was due to an error in calculating local time from Zulu (GMT) time. I'll search for this & get back to you. As for what Rodzali said during the 9th press conference, what I copied verbatim from the press conference -

Uh, yeah. We..actually we looked back at the recording, and there’s an indication, possible indication, that the aircraft made a turn back. And this is uh..you know, collaborated at the moment. At the moment, we are as we speak, we are trying to make sense of this. And uh, it’s uh…in some part, some part collaborated by civil radar, but we’re still looking for areas from our international agencies.


You left out a bit there & you're free to check back on the 9th March press conference to confirm the veracity of the transcript. Coincidently this was in answer to the question by CNN's Jim Clancy.

salttee wrote:
Also, the Vietnamese radar saw it turn back in real time: Vietnam’s deputy minister of transport, Pham Quy Tieu): "We informed Malaysia on the day we lost contact with the flight that we noticed the flight turned back west but Malaysia did not respond," http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... final-path


As shown in the 9th press conference, they acknowledged it but since it's not yet corroborated they are not willing to commit to pulling back resources fully from the South China Sea.

salttee wrote:
There was a thick blanket of confusion spread by the Malaysian government. They are still keeping the exact flight path of the plane for it's first hour of flight after turnaround under wraps.


And you knew this authoritatively?
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:09 am

777Jet wrote:
I thought I was being very clear when I said "given what is known about MH370" when I asked the question - obviously not...

SomebodyinTLS can't answer the question I asked, it's quite simple.


It's not simple since we don't know much about what happened. I was consciously trying to make that point to your stupid question and it's not my fault if you can't understand my reply.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:18 am

UALWN wrote:
777Jet wrote:
Most of the others with more fantasy sounding theories stopped contributing because unlike you, they took the opportunity to stop making fools of themselves.

Yeah, please, keep insulting, keep your tone, "scumbag airlines" and all.

Now the "captain-did-it-crowd" wakes up because he had flown a similar route in his simulator, together with a 1000 others, all of them deleted. He had not touched the simulator in 6 months, by the way. Neither had he posted in Facebook (another of the so-called "red flags") for 6 months. But hey whatever. It's us, the skeptical, who are "making fools of ourselves." Sure.


Since day one you have offered nothing to the MH370 discussion other than hating on the Captain did it crowd... And that is all you keep doing...

Please provide your more credible sounding alternative that fits in with everything known or your arrogant posts will continue to be useless.

Have you ever though maybe the guy thought to himself "I had better stop my rants on FB if I go ahead with this one day?" - nah, that is beyond your capability.

As for the route on the sim to the SIO - given it was one out of thousands of routes on his sim I don't make much out of it at all. It was the media who brought it up again. It was somebody else who though it was worthy of a new thread. But yeah, keep blaming the Captain did it crowd for everything. There would be no need for such a route to be practiced on the sim because it would make no difference - if he was going to take the plane he would do it anyway and it would run out of fuel at whatever point that happened to be it.

And do explain what you mean by "scumbag airlines" - there are plenty of scumbag RUN airlines...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:24 am

Spyhunter wrote:
777Jet is simply offensive, with respect, and remarkably free in his criticisms of professional pilots, which rather suggests that he isn't one. The pilots of AF447 weren't incompetent and there is no reason to suppose that Captain Dubois, a pilot with nearly 11,000 hours in his logbook, who started flying for Air Inter in 1988 (which means he might have flown the Dassault Mercure) left the flight-deck.

The only evidence that he left the flight-deck comes from the CVR, but there is no audit trail linking this CVR to the CVR on AF447, indeed we know it's been faked (easily done by an intelligence agency, either digitally re-assembling recordings of the real pilots or using actors - there is no independent voice-recognition match) since it conflicts with the satellite imagery.


At least my posts are not underpinned by fantasy. I am also not here trying to promote / sell my book by trying to re-write the record of AF447 ;)

Your attempt to rewrite the record on AF447 is quite disgusting for the families who already have answers - shame on you.

All you say is that the data from the boxes has been faked - how convenient!

You might as well say the data from the boxes from any crash has been fakes if you want to write a book and make some money - disgusting!

The AF447 Captain did leave the cockpit - as the boxes reveal - and he was allowed to do so for his 'rest' - he just left at the wrong time in the opinion of some.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:39 am

LAX772LR wrote:
777Jet wrote:
The BA 772 that landed short of the runway at LHR, and even more so the Asiana 772 than landed into the extremely hard sea wall at the end of the SFO runway, provide an indication of how tough the 777 is.

Which has nothing to do with what's being asked. :roll:

777Jet wrote:
Just because the following specifically "someone was able to land a widebody jet on sea water (very different than a flat river) WITHOUT causing a breakup that killed nearly half the people on board or more?" has yet to happen does not mean it is not possible

THAT doesn't, but the fact that it's never been accomplished at any time that it's been attempted, show's that it's more likely impossible with current eqp than not.

777Jet wrote:
the ditched Ethiopian 767

....is a rather odd incident to bring up as a retort, seeing as it conforms exactly to the original point:
a sea ditching attempt that killed 72% of the people on board.


Point 1 - Roll your arrogant eyes until your head hurts if you like, but the point I was making was the 777 is one tough bird and has remained pretty well intact even after crashing into land. If it was gently ditched in the ocean and the ditching went well, IMHO it is more probable the the 777 remained mostly in large enough pieces to mostly sink thus leaving few debris to float away and be found.

Point 2 - " the fact that it's never been accomplished at any time that it's been attempted, show's that it's more likely impossible with current eqp than not." - that argument from you is baseless. The fact that 777s have come out well after crashing into land IMHO shows that if one was successfully gently ditched in the open ocean it is more probable that it would remain intact in large enough pieces to mostly sink - the rest of the smaller debris would be long gone or eventually sink themselves in the two plus weeks later it took the first searches to arrive in the vague area. That fact that there is no precedent for this is irrelevant and not surprising give that planes are not supposed to be landed on the water to begin with...

Point 3 - "....is a rather odd incident to bring up as a retort, seeing as it conforms exactly to the original point:
a sea ditching attempt that killed 72% of the people on board." - This is irrelevant given that people are searching for the plane and wondering why they have not been able to find the plane. We are talking about the possibilities of the airframe here. If the fuselage is found in one piece one day with the doors closed and all the dead bodies inside then saying 100% of the people died is irrelevant when discussing the strength / possibilities of the airframe / aircraft itself surviving a ditching (everyone except for the bad guy was probably dead before the ditching anyway in the rogue pilot scenario so it wouldn't be the planes fault that no one had a chance to survive).
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:41 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

777Jet wrote:
Just because the following specifically "someone was able to land a widebody jet on sea water (very different than a flat river) WITHOUT causing a breakup that killed nearly half the people on board or more?" has yet to happen does not mean it is not possible

THAT doesn't, but the fact that it's never been accomplished at any time that it's been attempted, show's that it's more likely impossible with current eqp than not.

777Jet wrote:
the ditched Ethiopian 767

....is a rather odd incident to bring up as a retort, seeing as it conforms exactly to the original point:
a sea ditching attempt that killed 72% of the people on board.


The fact that's it's never been accomplished doesn't make it any less possible or impossible. Personally having flown both the 777 and the P-3 (where we were always practicing ditching), I would say that it's toally possible to ditch a 777 without ripping it apart.

As for the Ethiopian 767, at the time of the ditching to my understanding the Captain was getting plenty of assistance from the hijackers making a more survivable ditching very difficult.


Well said.

If the MH370 Captain did it he wouldn't have had hi-jackers in the cockpit interfering with his attempt to successfully ditch and save the lives of all of his pax.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:42 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
you too are doing the exact same thing - you have no trouble believing unnamed sources - Malaysian airspace circa 2016 is different than Malaysian airspace circa 2014 - And you knew (keeping the exact flight path under wraps) this authoritatively?

I am not going to go line by line rebutting your rather incoherent arguments. But I will make a couple of points:

I am not claiming to be an authority figure here as you are. Most of my assertions are cited, you are free to debate anything I have left uncited but you will have to make the case or cases individually rather than with a blanket accusation of using "unnamed sources".

If you believe that there was more traffic in the morning of March 8, 2014 than there is on recent Friday nights it is up to you to back up that assertion. AFIK air travel has continued on the increase worldwide for the last couple of years; and you must have some huge discrepancy in mind to be mounting the challenge that you have raised. Make your case if you have one.

And yes I do know that the exact flight path of 9MMRO for the first hour after the turnaround hasn't been released to the public. Yet the Malaysian government has since stated that they did track that part of the flight. If you have this information in hand you are certainly free to post it here: many people would be interested in seeing it.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:49 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
777Jet wrote:
I thought I was being very clear when I said "given what is known about MH370" when I asked the question - obviously not...

SomebodyinTLS can't answer the question I asked, it's quite simple.


It's not simple since we don't know much about what happened. I was consciously trying to make that point to your stupid question and it's not my fault if you can't understand my reply.


But it is your fault when you stupidly reply to a question in a way that asks for clarification. And when you fail to clarify your previous stupid reply you only have your own stupidity to blame when others give you stick.

We might not know too much about what happened, but there are quite a few known facts, and given what is known it makes some scenarios more likely than others in this specific incident; so you can take your premise about 'statistically out of all plane crashes pilot intentionally do it is very rare' and chuck it in the bin for this case in which there are signs the Captain might indeed have intentionally been the cause.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
klm617
Posts: 4676
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:52 am

DDR wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
I ought also to have dealt with the point that you wouldn't shoot down an airliner just to murder one person of interest. This viewpoint makes a basic mistake, with respect. As I always told my intelligence students at AMU in order to understand what the Bad Guys are thinking you have to think like them. The US has only ever brought down one civilian airliner deliberately, to my knowledge - that DC-9 off Sicily. It's just not an American thing, let alone the US Navy, although aircraft from the USS Saratoga were involved in the DC-9 incident, the facts of which are a little obscure (the DC-9 captain was almost certainly warned)..

Wait, what? What DC-9 did the U.S. government shoot down? I never heard about this. I know of the A300, but not the DC-9 incident.



He is talking about this incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerolinee ... Flight_870
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:05 am

salttee wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
I am not claiming to be an authority figure here as you are. Most of my assertions are cited, you are free to debate anything I have left uncited but you will have to make the case or cases individually rather than with a blanket accusation of using "unnamed sources".
You cited news report that did not clarify its sources. So in essence it is correct that you rely on unnamed sources - third hand information. You do realize that news reports are fallible and may not be 100% correct?

I don't care if you don't believe. Like I said, I have no beef over this.

salttee wrote:
If you believe that there was more traffic in the morning of March 8, 2014 than there is on recent Friday nights it is up to you to back up that assertion. AFIK air travel has continued on the increase worldwide for the last couple of years; and you must have some huge discrepancy in mind to be mounting the challenge that you have raised. Make your case if you have one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JtYApCrUDY - I do believe that there's more than a dozen planes flying over Malaysian airspace based on this FR24 recording. Plus based on the press conference which I linked to on March 12 - the one that disproved your assertion that General Rodzali did not participate in another press conference after March 11 - they do assert that the radar plot was intermittent.

salttee wrote:
And yes I do know that the exact flight path of 9MMRO for the first hour after the turnaround hasn't been released to the public. Yet the Malaysian government has since stated that they did track that part of the flight. If you have this information in hand you are certainly free to post it here: many people would be interested in seeing it.


Please show me when did I assert that I have the information?
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:40 am

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.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:42 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JtYApCrUDY - I do believe that there's more than a dozen planes flying over Malaysian airspace based on this FR24 recording. Plus based on the press conference which I linked to on March 12 - the one that disproved your assertion that General Rodzali did not participate in another press conference after March 11 - they do assert that the radar plot was intermittent.
That youtube link is a good find. I see about 14 planes within 240 miles of the Pulu Penang radar at turnaround, so you have a point, but just barely. 5:41 in the video represents the time of the turnaround (01:20 local) but at that time there is a cluster of five planes still barely in range which obviously represent the midnight Singapore rush hour going to Europe. A few minutes later the count would be down to 9 planes, and as the night went on there would have been less traffic until dawn. Also notice that there is no traffic across the northern part of the Malaysian peninsula at the time of turnaround (although one plane appears headed there). So all in all we're in the same ballpark and this is hardly "a sea of blips". For a trained and experienced operator this was no challenge.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Please show me when did I assert that I have the information?

I didn't mean to say that you did. I know that they still haven't released this information, so I knew that you couldn't have it either.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:34 am

salttee wrote:
So all in all we're in the same ballpark and this is hardly "a sea of blips". For a trained and experienced operator this was no challenge.
Only if you're aware of what you're tracking & the returns were strong. And I don't think the Air Force radar was fully manned at that time.

Remember, based on the press conference the contact was intermittent. I've not found anything to say that the returns from MH370 was solid.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 4:23 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Only if you're aware of what you're tracking & the returns were strong. And I don't think the Air Force radar was fully manned at that time.
The radar used was a Selex Sistemi Integrati RAT-31 DL/FADR; this is a state of the art phased array system which is NATO certified and used by NATO to detect incoming ballistic missiles. The target, a Boeing 777, obviously provides a reflective surface many times greater than an incoming missile. There could have been no time that the returns would have been weak or unavailable except possibly at about the middle of it's post turnaround flight, when 9MMR0 may have been directly overhead of the Pulu Penang radar site. These types of radars aren't designed to look straight up. According to the preliminary report the radar was staffed that night with four people, I can't imagine why it would take more than that to monitor one PPI scope.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
Remember, based on the press conference the contact was intermittent. I've not found anything to say that the returns from MH370 was solid.
I don't know what press conference you are referring to. There was a horse and donkey show for the "families" in late March where an obviously fraudulent composite of several radar returns was passed off as showing the last part of the flight, maybe that's what you are talking about. But you may be confused by Thai air force spokesman Air Vice Marshal Montol Suchookorn's description of Thai radar returns as being intermittent. This is understandable because of the high ground between the Thai radar at Hat Yai and 9MMR0's flight path as it crossed the peninsula. If the plane had descended to lower altitude as some early leaks suggested, this may have been an intentional tactic employed by Zaharie.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8949
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 7:39 am

There are huge differences between landing a plane on a hard surface and on the water, especially for planes with such huge engines as the 777. On land and on a flat surface, the engines can work as a kind of buffer that works too soften the landing. But even then those engines cause strong tendencies for the plane to overturn, once they dig into softer ground or brake away. The Asiana crash was quite close to ending very differently and the EK crash showed this as well.

When landing on water those huge engines sink into the water, which makes it very likely that the fuselage will overturn and disintegrate thanks to the rapid deceleration. To put it simply if, one engines hits a wave your are doomed.
Last edited by seahawk on Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12664
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 7:56 am

777Jet wrote:
that argument from you is baseless.

Oh, the irony in YOU saying THAT. :lol: :lol:


777Jet wrote:
This is irrelevant

Actually, no, it goes right back to my original point... but hey, let's hear it for reading comprehension.



seahawk wrote:
There are huge differences between landing a plane on a hard surface and on the water, especially for planes with such huge engines as the 777. . . .To put it simply if, one engines hits a wave your are doomed.

Bingo. Or wingtip.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:38 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.

His wild assertions posts do come across like that of a crackpot's; someone not quite right in the head. If what you posted is correct, its sad that a member of the intelligentsia end up being a jailbird. Still, to be fair to him, why not read up on an alternative take on his case. He might have been wrongly convicted after all. If the author of that article is correct, Michael Shrimpton is worthy of our understanding and sympathy.
http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/23/the-s ... shrimpton/
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:41 am

777Jet wrote:
there are signs the Captain might indeed have intentionally been the cause.


Yeah, just keep on saying it - won't make it true.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:26 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
777Jet wrote:
there are signs the Captain might indeed have intentionally been the cause.


Yeah, just keep on saying it - won't make it true.


Yeah, just keep on ignoring the signs - won't make them go away.

The vocal support for the opposition. The relation to Anwar. The known Anwar connections. The rants and statements on Facebook that all of a sudden stopped months before MH370. The Anwar sodomy guilty verdict just hours before MH370. Opportunity - called up to Captain one of MH's longest 2 pilot only sectors (decent fuel range as well as only one other pilot to deal with who just happened to be on his first 777 flight without a check-pilot). Perhaps he was going through a separation as well - who knows the truth about that. The sim stuff doesn't really matter - he wouldn't need to practice. Nonetheless, there was building motive that perhaps reached tipping point on the night in which he was given the perfect opportunity...

But, yeah, believe that there are no signs that point towards the Captain being the cause. Whatever floats your 777...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:41 am

Whatever floats your 777 is unlikely to be water. Whilst I respect 7BOEING7's expert opinion that it is possible to successfully ditch a 777 in the open ocean, I would make the following points:

(1) Having regard to the wide diameter of the high-bypass ratio engines this could surely only be in calm surface conditions, with say 30 deg flap, which might not be available in an emergency. In any sort of sea the risk of asymmetric drag would be considerable.

(2) The Rolls-Royce Trent 800 has a 110" diameter fan. The GE90, the other main engine type for the 777 family, is of similar dimensions, with the GE90-115 for the -300ER having a fan diameter of no less than 127". Inevitably the engine pods descend below the hull. In even the most gentle of ditchings, assuming a standard VREF with 30 deg flap, and a gear-up, flap down stall speed of say 110 knots, with the aircraft held off until the last possible moment, seawater would enter the engines soon after the nose was lowered, at a minimum speed of say 75 knots, bearing in mind that almost by definition there would no reverse thrust or brakes to slow the aircraft, with aerodynamic braking the only means available, resulting in sharp decceleration, with an attendant nose-down pitching moment, with a high risk of engine pod separation.

(3) 7BOEING7, assuming that he is an American, is almost certainly a former US Navy pilot. Having been flown in a US Navy aircraft (a C-2A, which trapped onto CVN-65) I can attest to the high standards of US Navy aviation. Training and peer review is more intense in the US Navy than it is in commercial airlines - every carrier landing, e.g. is videoed for safety reasons, indeed if you're a passenger in a COD the Navy will give you a copy of the recording. (Please don't ask what a British civilian, and a lawyer at that, was doing aboard a US carrier - officially, it was purely a social call upon Captain 'Lips' Rice and the two Flag Officers aboard, with a working breakfast with one of the admirals) . US Navy pilots also regularly practice ditching, which commercial pilots don't, although they are trained in ditching technique. We all know the value of good training and the importance of being current. Every commercial pilot ditching an airliner in the open sea will be doing it for the first time.

(4) The Lockheed Electra and its military derivative, the P-3 Orion, are fine aircraft, with good ditching characteristics, assuming hydraulic power has been maintained, all props have been feathered and a stall speed of around 108 knots, with no hull damage during the emergency.

(5) I respectfully maintain that no Boeing 777 captain is going to ditch his or her aircraft on the open sea save as a last resort in a dire emergency, such as fuel starvation, double engine failure or uncontrollable on-board fire.

(6) Fine and stong aircraft as the 777 is, only in calm surface conditions and with a high degree of skill could such a procedure be carried out without a high risk of hull break-up and heavy loss of life, as happened in the only instance of a wide-bodied airliner being ditched on the open ocean, admittedly after a hijack. In point of fact however the hijackers do not seem to have physically interfered with the crew once they appreciated that the aircraft was indeed out of fuel and had no option but to ditch.

The Wikipedia article referred to is unbalanced and was drafted almost exclusively by an anonymous editor calling himself or herself "Psychonaut" who has this morning (Zulu time) resisted efforts by a third party to correct basic factual errors. As it stands the article does not meet Wikipedia's quite high standards of balance and accuracy, and it requires urgent editorial intervention. I was indeed convicted, but fresh evidence, some of it supplied by Britain's Security Service ('MI5'), has since emerged undermining both prosecutions and each has been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body set up in Britain after the Birmingham Six farce to correct miscarriages of justice. A High Court judge has ruled that the referral was on legitimate grounds and I remain a barrister, albeit on an interim suspension, pending the CCRC inquiries.

So far from being a conspiracy theorist, I go out of my way in my intelligence text Spyhunter to dismantle several popular conspiracy theories, such as the absurd idea that Prime Minister Churchill ordered the sabotaging of General Sikorski's B-24, a crash which is readily explained by anyone familiar with the Liberator and the high alpha angle on take-off imposed by runway extension works at Gib. I also firmly reject the theory that the UN Air Command Douglas DC-6B carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was shot down by Katangan Fouga Magisters, an aircraft which lacked both the range and the night-fighting capability to have carried out the alleged interception. On both issues I respectfully endorse the views of the late Captain Jan Bartelski, of KLM and IFALPA, an outstanding pilot and air crash researcher.

Spyhunter was not aimed at the general reader, by the way, and sales were never the primary objective - it's too long, and deals with issues too complex for the lay reader. It is however required reading on at least one postgraduate intelligence course, should be familiar to most Western intelligence officers and so far as I know is recommended reading at several intelligence training schools. A key theme was endorsed by the Prime Minister of Israel, albeit without the source material being made public, in a major speech on responsibility for the Holocaust.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Tue Aug 09, 2016 10:35 pm

Spyhunter wrote:

(4) The Lockheed Electra and its military derivative, the P-3 Orion, are fine aircraft, with good ditching characteristics, assuming hydraulic power has been maintained, all props have been feathered and a stall speed of around 108 knots, with no hull damage during the emergency.


Ideally if you're ditching a P-3 most if not all of the engines are running and the only prop feathered would be for an engine issue.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:27 am

While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece from yesterday which refutes the "piloted into the sea" story...

(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

But extensive testing by aircraft manufacturer Boeing and new Australian defence department data analysis both suggest that - regardless of the possible actions of one or both of the pilots - the jet dived into the ocean at high speed, The Australian reported.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 27800.html
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:11 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece from yesterday which refutes the "piloted into the sea" story...

(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

But extensive testing by aircraft manufacturer Boeing and new Australian defence department data analysis both suggest that - regardless of the possible actions of one or both of the pilots - the jet dived into the ocean at high speed, The Australian reported.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 27800.html


Exactly. What testing and what data analysis? I thought all they had from the last moments were the last couple of pings from Inmarsat. There were no radar coverage. So again, what testing? What data?
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:25 am

You sure seem to have strong opinions about MH 370. But it looks more like you seem to not know much about the MH 370 incident and are projecting that lack of knowledge on others in the manner of a fairly rabid zealot..

Some recent examples of your strong opinions:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
With what is actually KNOWN about MH370 it will never be anything else.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
It's not simple since we don't know much about what happened.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Yeah, just keep on saying it - won't make it true.


But even after being corrected earlier about some of the above, you continue pontificating about that of which you know nothing.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece from yesterday which refutes the "piloted into the sea" story...
(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

The reporting "here" has been extremely thorough and about every known fact about the disappearance of 9MMR0 has been hashed out in great detail and although apparently unknown to you there have been a great many facts brought here and discussed here. It seems to me that anyone posting strong opinions here should feel obligated to have reviewed what has already been posted on this site on this subject; otherwise using bold, underline and harsh language to pass judgement on other people's knowledge just comes off like a hound howling at the moon.

Please be informed that the subject of phugoid oscillations has been discussed here (and about everywhere else MH - 370 has been discussed) for over a year, this is not breaking news for most of the rest of us.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:48 am

xiaotung wrote:
Exactly. What testing and what data analysis? I thought all they had from the last moments were the last couple of pings from Inmarsat. There were no radar coverage. So again, what testing? What data?
Oh, we have another.

Boeing has not been a part of the Inmarsat analysis or the main investigation into the disappearance of 9MMR0. They have tried to stay in the background because it is fairly obvious that whatever happened to 9MMR0 was not due to a fault in the design or manufacture of the aircraft. However the people (Australians) who have devoted considerable resources to the search for the aircraft hull have asked Boeing about various scenarios which may have come about at the termination of the flight. The most likely scenario would be that the plane was flying under autopilot and suffered fuel exhaustion.
Boeing engineers then put forth the premise that in such a circumstance the plane would descent in phugoid oscillations. Boeing itself has never (officially) analyzed what scenario would have actually taken place at the end of the flight, they have just opined on how they believe the plane might have behaved in various situations.

I for one cannot understand why there is so much interest in the subject of whether the plane was flown in, nosedived in or fell into phugoid oscillations.
This might (or might not) be of interest to someone who is trying to plot the exact location of the wreck, but it is on no consequence to those who are trying to find out what happened back at IGARI at 01:19 on March 8th. This is a part of the flight where there actually is not a shred of dependable evidence to determine what happened. And unless you are one of the people who is actually searching for the wreck I can see no purpose in speculating exactly how the flight ended. To me it's sort of like trying to guess how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who cares?
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:19 am

delteted
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:26 am

salttee wrote:
It seems to me that anyone posting strong opinions here should feel obligated to have reviewed what has already been posted on this site on this subject; otherwise using bold, underline and harsh language to pass judgement on other people's knowledge just comes off like a hound howling at the moon.

Please be informed that the subject of phugoid oscillations has been discussed here (and about everywhere else MH - 370 has been discussed) for over a year, this is not breaking news for most of the rest of us.


Me neither... because in fact I have read every single post on this site about MH370, know quite a bit about Malaysia and I'm an aerospace engineer.

Please note, I'm not trying to say I'm more qualified to pass judgement - just pointing out that I have been following this story very carefully from the beginning since I have personal and professional connections to it.

It's funny that making a case to keep an open mind rather than focussing on only one potential (and in my view unlikely) cause from a myriad of possibilities is "having a strong opinion".

And it's also ironic that I'm accused of "harsh language" (I once lost my temper a bit and wrote "stupid" - which I immediately regretted, I might add...) while being called a howling hound.

Ah well...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:13 am

salttee wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece

The reporting "here" has been extremely thorough and about every known fact about the disappearance of 9MMR0 has been hashed out in great detail


I now realise I wasn't totally clear and you may have misunderstood me. My apologies. Let me clarify: "While the reporting [in this article - note my footnote below marked with an asterisk] is as spurious as ever [for journalism on aerospace topics and MH370 in particular], it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece."

salttee wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

Please be informed that the subject of phugoid oscillations has been discussed here (and about everywhere else MH - 370 has been discussed) for over a year, this is not breaking news for most of the rest of us.


I was talking about the use of language, not the phugoids. Since I doubt that's a quote from Boeing, I'm questioning the journalistic accuracy of the article. I used the term "quote" and wrapped the text in quotation marks, so I don't see how I could have been much clearer.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:54 am

So I tracked down the The Australian article that AFP has tried to summarise and it's better...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... ffc8b531da

(Don't read it hoping for confirmation of this thread though...)
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:53 pm

In response to 7BOEING7, I entirely agree that ideally you would want all of your motors running when ditching a P-3. It's a little chicken and egg, however - if all four motors are running there should be no need to ditch. A P-3 being a military aircraft, the pilot in command has the luxury of jettisoning the payload, something which cannot be done in the case of a civilian airliner without generating complaints. A lightened P-3 ought to be able to reach a runway if even only one motor is delivering cruise power, although of course there are a number of variables, including fuel load and distance to the nearest runway.

I have a high regard for Lockheed, and have always enjoyed my visits to the Skunk Works at Palmdale, but not even my friends at Lockheed would claim that the P-3, fine product that it is, is designed to land on water. Even the claim that Frank Cappuccio can walk on water is exaggerated (sorry, Frank!). For products which can land on water you need to move further on south in California to San Diego, and it's been a long time since the last PBY emerged from the Consolidated factory.

In the posited scenario - a wide-body being ditched in the open ocean - the probability is that no engine power would be available at all, as if even one engine were delivering power there would be no need to ditch. The famous Virgin Atlantic (wasn't it?) passenger briefing "should the captain decide to land on water" was a little misleading - if the captain is 'landing' on water he or she will usually have run out of options, which is why in 45 years of commercial wide-body operation we have only seen it happen once, and only after a hijack by hijackers unaware of either the width of the Indian Ocean or the range of a 767.

The INMARSAT data will not bear the weight being placed on it in this discussion. It has not been independently audited, nor have adequate anti-sabotage checks been carried out. No doubt the people drawing conclusions from the raw data acted in good faith. No-one however has checked to see if the data, which comes from software, was corrupted. It almost certainly was, explaining the otherwise inexplicable delay before alerting the Air Sea Rescue authorities, i.e. the data only came into existence after the shoot-down, not before.
 
JERRYII
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:24 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:26 pm

Lets forget what we saw on TV. PRESS etc. The MH370 was a very well, or extremely well planed operation.The Pilot was guilty or innocent. I believe he was innocent. If he was not, we have one extra mouth. Mouths talk.Who ever planned it he knew his job perfectly, Two things could have happened.
When communications stopped the plane went swimming. or maybe it did not. Which means the a/c is well.The plan is to go to Beijing and I believe to Seoul if there was problem in landing in Beijing. I do not know after twenty years of work with aircraft , a pilot warning passengers not to leave any evidence now they go to ditch. An aircraft of this size if it falls from just 40 to 50 feet, it will break up.I do not accept that it was sunk like a stone without living lots and lots of evidence. Every seat is a a life saving object in the water. The plane turned to the left. Why? Because that way it would be covered by darkness until reaching its destination. I calculated that it could reach Somalia. After saying good night, the aeroplane flew a very long way. Who saw it.I believe too many eyes, but nobody thought about it. I many times watch aircraft flying on my computer but I forget what I saw, just as I turn my head. There is a strong possibility that Some expert's eys saw more than that, but they cannot divulge what they saw, what they know.
The a/c was stolen not destroyed. My relations with Diego Garcia were very close until Jan, 1991. But havin spent my life since the age of 15 with people of their nationality, the by rocket destruction of the aircraft is a very funny joke. Don't forget such an action involves too many eyes but mostly a huge number of mouths. Why did it go south toward Australia The waters are maybe better for swimming. Thank you
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1707
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:14 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece from yesterday which refutes the "piloted into the sea" story...

(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

But extensive testing by aircraft manufacturer Boeing and new Australian defence department data analysis both suggest that - regardless of the possible actions of one or both of the pilots - the jet dived into the ocean at high speed, The Australian reported.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 27800.html



Its interesting that the same news source (The Australian) had 2 stories recently about the fate of MH370. Two weeks ago they had the story about the aircraft being piloted down to its doom, now they have the story that it plunged down without any pilot assistance. I also find it interesting that the new story (which is an old one actually, same theory from 2 years ago) was not linked. I guess the most vocal on here are adamant the pilot did it and another theory wasn't to be entertained.

This story however doesn't refute the hijack by pilot theory, but it does put doubt that someone was there to pilot the aircraft into the sea. I do agree with your premise that it would be nice to wait for more information before making declarations on what happened, even if it means that sometimes we will not know why or how an aircraft disappeared.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

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

Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:29 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
In response to 7BOEING7, I entirely agree that ideally you would want all of your motors running when ditching a P-3. It's a little chicken and egg, however - if all four motors are running there should be no need to ditch. A P-3 being a military aircraft, the pilot in command has the luxury of jettisoning the payload, something which cannot be done in the case of a civilian airliner without generating complaints. A lightened P-3 ought to be able to reach a runway if even only one motor is delivering cruise power, although of course there are a number of variables, including fuel load and distance to the nearest runway.


No chicken and egg here. Prime scenario for a P-3 ditching is a runaway prop leading to a possible wing fire as occurred on AF586 out of Adak, AK in 1978. Losing one or two engines as long as you can feather the prop and you're not too heavy is not a big deal -- you just go home -- they fly around with one/two engines shutdown as normal ops. The only other P-3 to ditch was due to a runaway prop also but they were near the runway so they initially planned on returning to land, however the number four prop took out engine number three and cut the controls to one and two so a ditching was their only choice.

P-3's jettison fuel just like a civilian airliner not so much payload.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:39 am

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece from yesterday which refutes the "piloted into the sea" story...

(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

But extensive testing by aircraft manufacturer Boeing and new Australian defence department data analysis both suggest that - regardless of the possible actions of one or both of the pilots - the jet dived into the ocean at high speed, The Australian reported.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 27800.html


Contrary to your claim that nobody posted that information, I actually posted a link to an article from The Australian with the exact same content two days ago.

For some reason, that post was deleted; it vanished just like MH370 (100% human intervention was the cause in this instance).

I have always posted any new information on MH370 regardless of what scenario it supports, and as I have always said, I don't care what happened. Like many others, I just would like to know what happened. Having said that, I still give the same weight to the Captain doing it given what is known - something else could change my opinion however.

I'll keep this reply short because posting long replies in this thread, and on this topic altogether, can be a waste of time depending on the thread cleaners ;)
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:55 am

[quote="Spyhunter"][/quote]

Spyhunter, if you think MH370 was shot down, and the NZ oil rig worker did in fact see MH370 after it had been hit (as you detailed in an earlier reply), then:

1) Where did it crash / impact?

2) Where are any real debris?

I assume under your scenario it went down somewhere in the SCS, not too long after the NZ oil rig worker saw it, and if it crashed in that location, why hasn't a single piece of the plane been found anywhere in that area? There is a lot of sea and military sea traffic in that area, and land pretty much surrounds the SCS on all sides from that area. So, where are any debris?

I still think your scenario borders on fantasy, but perhaps you can explain why not a single debris has been found in that specific area given the geography; it's not exactly like you are saying it crashed in the middle of the Indian or Pacific Ocean which makes the lack of debris more understandable given the distance from land...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:02 am

JERRYII wrote:
Lets forget what we saw on TV. PRESS etc. The MH370 was a very well, or extremely well planed operation.The Pilot was guilty or innocent. I believe he was innocent. If he was not, we have one extra mouth. Mouths talk.Who ever planned it he knew his job perfectly, ...


... The plane turned to the left. Why? Because that way it would be covered by darkness until reaching its destination.



1) If the Captain did not do it but it was a planned operation, then I would put money on the person who called him up to come to work that night being in on it. That person would have been able to call up a pilot that dirt could be found on.

2) It is interesting that it would have just been sunrise in the area that Inmarsat believe the flight ended. In other words, just enough light to see for the ditching attempt after an undetected flight through the darkness of night.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3882
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:10 am

xiaotung wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
While the reporting here is as spurious as ever(*), it's interesting that no-one has posted this AFP piece from yesterday which refutes the "piloted into the sea" story...

(* Boeing says "plunging down towards the water in a series of swoops"? Somehow I doubt that's a quote from an official document!)

But extensive testing by aircraft manufacturer Boeing and new Australian defence department data analysis both suggest that - regardless of the possible actions of one or both of the pilots - the jet dived into the ocean at high speed, The Australian reported.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wor ... 27800.html


Exactly. What testing and what data analysis? I thought all they had from the last moments were the last couple of pings from Inmarsat. There were no radar coverage. So again, what testing? What data?


That's what I asked myself as well (and I don't think your question has been answered (@ Saltee: I doesn't sound as if they refer to Boeing's flight simulations, only):

The sentence in that article is:
But extensive testing by aircraft manufacturer Boeing and new Australian defence department data analysis both suggest that - regardless of the possible actions of one or both of the pilots - the jet dived into the ocean at high speed, The Australian reported.


So, what testing and what data analysis?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:10 am

N14AZ wrote:
So, what testing and what data analysis?


Pure speculation on my part, but from the more complete article in The Australian it sounds like further analysis of the pings has increased the accuracy of their locations and the certainty that the final one followed engine flame-out (either that or "new analysis" means new to the journalist, not "recently conducted"). The journalist has obviously been presented with quite a comprehensive set of data and simulations of what they think is the likely scenario. Again, that might only be new to him and not the team itself.

I get a feeling the investigators did this to put an end to these threads... "The Australian has a reality check over MH370 analysis" (LOL)

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalkin ... -analysis/

"Today’s story in The Australian lucidly sums up what other media has been reporting for months as to the rationale of the ATSB in focusing its sea floor search efforts along a so called seventh arc of possible locations some of which lie at depths of up to 6000 metres."
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:58 am

Point taken, 7BOEING7, I was unaware of the tragic AF586 incident out of NAS Adak. Looking it up, I can see that this was a P-3C from VP-9, on a surveillance mission, which seems to have been classified. I note that ten of the crew were rescued by a Russian trawler, well done them.

I do not know what sabotage investigation was carried out if any - given the nature of the mission and penetration of the US armed forces by the Correa/COREA Group out of Frankfurt, sabotage should not be ruled out without careful inquiry. A lot of the history of the Cold War is yet to be written. As Chief Ironside was wont to say, 'let's stand back people and look at the big picture'. The engine/prop combination on the P-3 was very similar to that used on the L-188 Electra (there was an earlier Electra, of course) and the same manufacturer's C-130. Therefore we would expect broadly similar engine/prop issues with all three fleets, with roughly similar incidence of failure, yet the P-3 fleet, which was mission critical in the Cold War, seems to have suffered more than its fair share of failures, even allowing for its often tough operating environment.

Because good accident investigation is critical to uncovering sabotage, historically we find that accident investigation units have been targeted by the Abwehr until 1944 then the DVD. The DVD's penetration of RAE's Comet inquiry by John Argyris is classic example - he was paid 1,500,000 DM, a tidy sum in 1955, and fitted out with a nice new laboratory in Germany.

In answer to 777Jet, wreckage WAS found in the SCS. My information is that it was identified from the photographs by Boeing as a 777 passenger escape hatch, using computer enhancement and digital mapping, comparing it with the original CAD data (the 777 design team used CAD, not-old fashioned blueprints). Boeing could NOT say it was from a -200, let alone MH370. They couldn't, as there are no significant design differences between the passenger hatches in the 777 family.

They did not need to however. Floating wreckage from a 777 underneath the fight-path of a lost 777 with no other recent 777 losses in the vicinity means only one thing - it came from the lost 777, absent any innocent explanation. It was too early to have been dumped, unlike the SIO wreckage, and in any event there are no reports of freighters overhead at the material time, unlike the SIO, where we have a Chinese IL-96 staging out of an airbase in Indonesia, operating over the SIO before the more northerly set of wreckage was discovered, wreckage which did not show up on SATINT before the -96 appeared.

The oil-rig worker, in my judgment, was an honest eye-witness, i.e. in my opinion he really did see a flash in the sky. There is no reason to discount his testimony, nor has any been suggested. The eye-witness testimony (there were three eye-witnesses to the shoot-down) has not been discredited, it has been ignored, presumably because it did not fit the official, SIO, narrative.

This does NOT mean that the Kiwi witness saw MH-370 crash in flames. He is not an aviation specialist and would not have been thinking in terms of a SAM strike. It is more likely that he saw the missile exhaust, followed by detonation. I do not believe the missile actually struck the aircraft - as with AF447 we probably have a nearby detonation triggered by the proximity fuze we know the Fakour-2 is fitted with.

By the way it was me who exposed the Fakour-2, albeit not by name, privately inside in the Intelligence Community, then publicly in my weekly intelligence column on http://www.VeteransToday.com. After I had exposed it the Iranians came clean and paraded the missile in Teheran in November 2013, which is when we in the West learnt its name. It is a developed version of the powerful, long-range Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix supplied to Iran in the 1970s, along with the F-14A Tomcat. My analysis that the AIM-54 could be modified for surface launch and used as a SAM, which was queried by some, was supported by the revelation that, unbeknown to me, Hughes Aircraft had proposed a multiple launcher to the USN as a Sea-Sparrow replacement in the early 70s.

I suspect it was an earlier version of the Fakour, logically designated Fakour-1, which brought down TWA-800. We know that was a missile strike, that the NTSB conclusions were deeply flawed and reached under pressure from the White House, that NTSB investigators have since come forward to say they were placed under pressure from higher up the payroll, that TWA800 was too high for a MANPADS, that the US Navy were NOT involved, as (1) the US Navy does not generally shoot down airliners and that in the only proven incident it was in a war-zone, with powerful mitigating factors and (2) the nearest US warship, the USS Normandie, was out of range, and that there was an intermittent surface radar contact consistent with a hull-down SSK.
 
smaragdz
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:48 pm

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

Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:59 am

Spyhunter wrote:
The INMARSAT data will not bear the weight being placed on it in this discussion. It has not been independently audited, nor have adequate anti-sabotage checks been carried out. No doubt the people drawing conclusions from the raw data acted in good faith. No-one however has checked to see if the data, which comes from software, was corrupted. It almost certainly was, explaining the otherwise inexplicable delay before alerting the Air Sea Rescue authorities, i.e. the data only came into existence after the shoot-down, not before.


What are you talking about? The group analysing the data (both independently and collaboratively) included: the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (UK), Boeing (US), the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Australia), the Department of Civil Aviation (Malaysia), Inmarsat (UK), the National Transportation Safety Board (US), and Thales (UK). Inmarsat even released the data and published a peer-reviewed paper on their analysis.

Do you honestly think that you're above all those organisations and qualified to reject their findings and claim that the data 'almost certainly was' corrupted? All this based on - what you deem to be - an 'inexplicable delay before alerting the Air Sea Rescue authorities'.

I'm actually lost for words...

See:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5163181/AE ... Update.pdf
"The Search for MH370", Journal of Navigation, Ashton et al.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos