MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 20

SA7700 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:04 pm

Due to length part 19 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 20.

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B777-200ER missing enroute KUL-PEK (by Longhornmaniac Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 2 (by LipeGIG Mar 7 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 3 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 4 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 5 (by SA7700 Mar 8 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysian Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 6 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 7 (by SA7700 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines 772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 8 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 9 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 9 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 10 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 11 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 12 (by SA7700 Mar 10 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 13 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 14 (by SA7700 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 15 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 11 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 16 (by SA7700 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 17 (by 777ER Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 18 (by jetblueguy22 Mar 12 2014 in Civil Aviation)

MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 19 (by SA7700 Mar 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

A select few members have been making remarks towards others in the “Missing Malaysia Airlines 777 threads” for speculating about the fate of 9M-MRO, her crew and passengers. Given the fact that there is so much uncertainty going on at this stage, speculation is going to be a factor on this site and also at the biggest and greatest news corporations of the globe. At least until we all have a clearer picture. Is it a perfect situation – certainly not? That being said, we need to stay dynamic in a possible fast-changing situation.

It is not unique to this incident and if we go back in history and trace remarkable aviation events we will see that speculation has been an aspect, essential to some healthy debate. It is not the intention of the moderators to stifle the opinions of members that fall within the rules-and regulations of airliners.net. All that we kindly request from all our members is to stay within the site’s parameters. Please be respectful towards one another and let us all hope for the best possible outcome.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; could we please keep science fiction theories and content related to possible future movie rights out of these threads? ****

**** Please do not repeat questions and scenarios that were covered and discussed in previous threads and which do not contribute in a constructive manner towards the real topic any longer. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** Once again please be respectful towards other users and keep the forum rules and regulations in mind when posting in the forums. Should there be any rule violations, please bring this to the attention of the moderators by making use of the “suggest deletion function”. ****

Enjoy the forums!

Regards and thanks for your co-operation,

SA7700

B-HOP · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:08 pm

I was the last in the previous post, so I try again

Did anyone feel fuel load mentioned say something, if its a five and a half hour flight, why then the Captain take an extra two hour worth of fuel and more to be burnt enroute, was fog forcasted in Beijing? No wonder MH loses money, does that gave a red herring away?

Have backgrounds of both pilots been throughly checked, (skipper's charity work) nor the crew or the Iranian men with European passport holder.Malaysian officials. Does the four hours endurace gave them enough time to Afganistan or the more 'difficult' side of Pakistan or other -stans? Though it would be hard to get un-notice if they follow European flight's route and overflew India, as there are dozens of flight bound for Europe at the time, but I hope none of these things were true. If lower attitude, how low as low flying burn a lot more fuel. Have all the ground staff also been checked?

At the moment, Malaysian officals are losing the plot how to handle the situations they try to deny any possible links, the eariler thins come clean, the less suspisicion towards (cover up) it is.

What about maintanece record, any problem with pressuration with the craft, could be just de-pressuration, in-capicated crew as crew try to return but either way chance for those on board are slim.

Kev

102IAHexpress · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:08 pm

from the last thread.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 104):
WSJ has probably read too much from blogs like this and failed to separate fact from speculations. Very poor journalism IMO.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 125):

WSJ is a crap paper no offense. I watched them closely over foreign affairs issues and like 80% of what they write is unsubstantiated much like the current article. There is actually no evidence at all in the article.

Looks like the WSJ was right. will you guys retract what you posted? I doubt you will, but prove me wrong.

LTC8K6 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:13 pm

The Kidd is apparently going to search the North Malacca Straits area, so the four hour flight doesn't match that, either.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blo...tes#block-5321df8be4b0bde291cd076a

tim73 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:13 pm

There is one possible sighting via Tomnod (article in Finnish) :

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/Tutkija+ar...+kadonnut+lentokone/a1394680271317

The photo looks very interesting, does not resemble ship at all.

[Edited 2014-03-13 10:15:27]

mark2fly1034 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:14 pm

Just heard the two US destroyer ships are going to search more south and west of the current area. Seems they may.... or may not no something. I also like the idea of mid air collision with maybe a fighter jet of some kind.

747megatop · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:14 pm

Per US there is indication that Jet crashed in Indian Ocean

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...hed-indian-ocean/story?id=22894802

Could this be it? Hope it turns out to be true!

11Bravo · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:14 pm

Quoting katekebo (Reply 241):
Unless US Navy, RR or Boeing confirm what WSJ and ABC say (and contradict Malaysian official reports), I would give them "zero" value to both WSJ and ABC articles.

Due respect, I think it is plainly obvious to nearly everyone but you that it is the "Malaysian Officials" who have zero credibility at this point. I do not understand how anyone could conceivably defend the Malaysian government on this subject given what we've all seen and heard this week. Reality Check.

7BOEING7 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:15 pm

Quoting KIAS (Reply 248):
To shut off ACARS someone would have to enter the E/E bay via the main deck access panel and tamper with the AIMS cabinet in the back of the bay.

If you just pull the CB's for the VHF, HF, and SATCOM which I believe are located in the cockpit you've in effect disabled the ACARS.

Thunderboltdrgn · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:16 pm

Quote:
Stephen Trimble ‏@FG_STrim 6m

Just spoke to US Navy: USS Kidd moving now to western area of Straits of Malacca
at request of Malaysian govt to search for #MH370

Stephen Trimble ‏@FG_STrim 49s

@AirlineFlyer US Navy is emphasizing the USS Kidd are not going deep into
the Indian Ocean, but staying within the Straits of Malacca.

http://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/444157848055197696
http://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/444159541236989952

Haven't seen that bolded statement before,

[Edited 2014-03-13 10:17:19]

N328KF · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:17 pm

Quote:
India’s search team has been asked to explore “very specific coordinates in the Andaman Sea,” said Syed Akbaruddin, a spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry, without elaborating on those coordinates.

Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...to-have-flown-with-beacon-off.html

Also, Reuters on data: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/444156014141526016

[Edited 2014-03-13 10:20:46]

gr325 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:19 pm

Quoting tim73 (Reply 4):
There is one possible sighting via Tomnod (article in Finnish) :

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/Tutkija+ar...+kadonnut+lentokone/a1394680271317

The photo looks very interesting, does not resemble ship at all.

Dont want to sound stupid, but couldnt that be a whale?

liquidair · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:19 pm

Quoting Mark2fly1034 (Reply 5):
I also like the idea of mid air collision with maybe a fighter jet of some kind.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 6):
Hope it turns out to be true!

poor choice of words, come on.... 239 people, remember????

bellancacf · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:21 pm

Would anyone object if I reposted this; it was the last item in Thread 19, which got locked as I was writing it!

I slept on this before tossing in my opinion, and now I really ought to check the intervening posts, but that would take a long time, so, apologies if this has been covered.

In thread 17, post 146, dandelany put up images which showed various levels of image processing of an image from ca. 7.54 N and 103.01E.

For what it's worth, I'm a retired microscopist/physiologist/programmer who worked on tissue structure at the limits of light resolution and got pretty heavily into digital images, to the point of writing an image processing package and feature extraction and quantitation scripts.

The final couple of images that dandelany posted I have to say I find 95% convincing. I think that's a plane. It would make sense, I think. The Gulf of Thailand is so shallow that if you were to stand a 777 on its nose at a location with average depth, the tail empennage would be above the surface. If there were a planar, reflective, high albedo object on the bottom, then, with illumination and viewing direction both aligned with the normal to the object's surface, there very well might be an increased return back up to and through the surface of the water. Not to make a tight statistical case for it, but consider that if there were just a "V" shape in the image (wings, say), then you'd consider a certain probability of it being your "target". But put another shape of the right size at the right relative position, and the probability of it being just coincidence ("noise") drops sharply. Put yet another shape in the image at the desired location and it drops even more.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that there is a plane lying flat on the bottom at that location.

solarflyer22 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:21 pm

Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 2):

Looks like the WSJ was right. will you guys retract what you posted? I doubt you will, but prove me wrong.

Noooooooooooo. USN confirmed its sending USS KIidd off Malacca but technically in the Indian Ocean. That's hardly a 4-5 journey that WSJ claimed and MH and RR both deny engine transmission.

Whats your source that WSJ is right?

DeltaMD90 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:22 pm

Quoting B-HOP (Reply 1):

Did anyone feel fuel load mentioned say something, if its a five and a half hour flight, why then the Captain take an extra two hour worth of fuel and more to be burnt enroute, was fog forcasted in Beijing? No wonder MH loses money, does that gave a red herring away?

Is this a serious question? Do you think airliners land and make it to the gate with almost 0 fuel, or do you think they carry extra fuel for diverts, emergencies, changing weather, etc?

Plus, I don't even think pilots are able to tell the refuelers to add more fuel, I could be wrong on that regard, but it would be very bizarre if an airliner carried 5.5 hours worth of fuel for a 5.5 hour flight

solarflyer22 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting 102IAHexpress (Reply 2):

Looks like the WSJ was right.

Really? Have you not seen the past 300 responses to WSJ?

Trin · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:24 pm

Quoting ThunderboltDrgn (Reply 9):
Quote:
Stephen Trimble ‏@FG_STrim 6m

Just spoke to US Navy: USS Kidd moving now to western area of Straits of Malacca
at request of Malaysian govt to search for #MH370

Stephen Trimble ‏@FG_STrim 49s

@AirlineFlyer US Navy is emphasizing the USS Kidd are not going deep into
the Indian Ocean, but staying within the Straits of Malacca.

As I posted towards the end of the last thread before it was locked, I recall back directly after the loss of this flight, the Malaysian authorities did announce that they had enlisted the help of the U.S./NTSB in interpreting their own radar images of the airspace over the Malaysian peninsula in the hours that followed MH-370's disappearance. With the previous statement (good luck finding it!) that 'Engine Data' not responsible for the focus on the Indian Ocean search area, I can only conclude that the aforementioned radar image examination provided at least sufficient evidence of an unidentified craft flying over Malaysia and into the Adaman Sea/western Straits of Malacca.

JimJupiter · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:26 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 14):
Whats your source that WSJ is right?

I guess it's the always popular "random guy on twitter".

billreid · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:26 pm

Quoting laddb (Reply 158):
As interesting as the many theories are, remember Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

I agree with Occam's Razor. In this case the aircraft said "good night" to Malaysia ATC and never checked in with Vietnam ATC. They would simply change the frequency and immediately call in. Never happened.

So what is the simplest solution?
1. They never dialed in intentionally. Logic tells you they didn't have a catastrophic failure at the exact moment of transfer between two countries while changing radio frequencies. No debris at that location because the plane isn't there. (I think I have a better chance of winning Mega-Millions forty weeks in a row.)
2. They wanted Malaysia ATC to stop tracking them, and they never asked Vietnam to track them.
3. They disabled all transponder transmission, most likely pulled the fuse. The intent was not to be tracked.
4. They then went wherever the went with a perfectly serviceable aircraft.
5. The reason why the aircraft can't be found is they don't want to be found. Occam's razor.
6. The reason why conflicting information is coming from the military is they know far more than they are saying.

Why would you not want to be found?
7. If you can land and hide an airplane in a third word landing strip you could have a $300,000,000 asset.
8. If I were to want something perhaps it makes more sense to do it through the correct channels not through the media.
9. Suicide fails the razor.
10. Hijack is possible.
11. Theft is possible. (Think somalian theft of ships)
12. Catastrophic failure fails the razor.
13. Military intervention is possible.

I would look at every landing strip within six hours of KUL that could land a B777.
Remember bombers were hidden in WWII from view through on ground camouflage.

tim73 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:29 pm

Quoting gr325 (Reply 11):

Dont want to sound stupid, but couldnt that be a whale?

Well, in the article a leading investigator from the Finnish Accident investigation Center says it is definitely interesting and should be checked out. Seems to have 3 stripes and that plane has three stripes in some places.

Trin · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:30 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 19):
I would look at every landing strip within six hours of KUL that could land a B777.
Remember bombers were hidden in WWII from view through on ground camouflage.

If that's your result of your Occam's razor interpretation, then I think we are failing to understand the premise behind Occam's razor. The most *likely* explanation is hikjacking by pirates and landing somewhere secret?

theaviator380 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:30 pm

Let's talk about this theory.

Getting shot down by missile or collision with drone or Stealth does sound possible, this could be the reason why there was no distress call, Pilots might not had an opportunity to do anything at all.

However saying that why plane changed it's course towards Mallaca Straits? does that mean it changed the course by mistake hence it was shot down or someone forced jet to change it's course hence it was shot down? this still remains big question.

Indian navy moving at special co-ordinates, USS Kidd going to western area of Mallaca Straits, interesting development.

[Edited 2014-03-13 10:34:09]

N328KF · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:32 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 16):
Really? Have you not seen the past 300 responses to WSJ?

The separate Reuters link (in my reply above) does lend credibility to the WSJ.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
Also, Reuters on data: https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/444156014141526016

It's obvious that you have a bone to pick with the WSJ, but more and more news is coming in that is in line with what they have said.

katekebo · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:39 pm

From The Guardian

Quote:
The Pentagon has told the Guardian that the US is moving the USS Kidd destroyer northwest through the Strait of Malacca.

A Pentagon spokesman said he could not confirm that the Pentagon was moving the USS Kidd to search the Indian Ocean but that it is searching the Strait of Malacca, the same area searched by a P-3C surveillance aircraft a few days ago.

The Malaysians requested that a ship come and search the same area the plane had already searched, the spokesman said.

So apparently the "incompetent"Malaysian authorities are still in charge and the US Navy is OK with it.
The WSJ report about ACARS being sent for 4 hours after loss of contact has been dismissed by several sources.

So much for ABC and WSJ credibility.

The whole confusion has been driven by:
1) Irresponsible news outlets that have been spreading rumors (in order to increase readership and hence advertising revenue)
2) Poor translation of Malaysian official statements.

Yes, the Malaysian authorities have released very little information - because they don't (and can't) share unverified data. It's better to stay quiet than spread rumors. If they are not sharing more information it's because they don't have any.

IADCA · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:39 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 19):

Why does suicide fail the razor? All that is unexplained in a suicide theory, really, is (1) where the second pilot was during the hypothetical suicide and (2) why didn't the suicidal party want to be found? Otherwise, it rather makes sense, and IMO lot more sense than your scenario.

affirmative · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:45 pm

Right, I have sifted through the last 10 or so threads. I baffled as to the copious amount of duplicate questions and lack of understanding of given answers.

I have a question though that sort of is a theory. If the ACARS installed in MH fleet is of the 'cheaper' version that only gives updates at given intervals wouldn't there be reporting at those intervals if the aircraft kept flying, transponder or not? If there's no info at all doesn't that point to catastrophic turn of events? Or is it in fact that MH doesn't have ACARS activated other than for engines? Both ACARS messages was received by RR in derby which leads me to believe it's the part of a pay per hour engine deal or similar. If there's no ACARS for the rest of the airframe that explains the lack of further messages.

And why would they turn back other than for a fairly serious issue, if they in fact turned back..? For some reason I can't get the eyewitness report from the oil rig out of my head. On a clear night a large burning object would easily be visible for 50-70km which was the approximated distance (f.ex I saw the space shuttle launch from Miami and that's more than 100miles.

Foul play? There is a tiny possibility IMHO but Malaysia is majority Muslim so I can't see why they would be the object of attack unless the target was china, but then a Chinese aircraft would make more sense.

Abduction (not the alien version)? Why go through the hassle of stealing a T7 when there are cargo planes. Getting 250 people off your hands can't be an easy task. Unless, and it's a bit far fetched, you're trying to get a big ransom payment which I feel is very far fetched.

Well, a mix of theories and a question.. I don't think anyone here will solve this mystery, mainly due to the massive lack of information, but with a conversation we can at least get better educated once the mystery is getting closer to being solved.

richierich · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 19):
So what is the simplest solution?
1. They never dialed in intentionally. Logic tells you they didn't have a catastrophic failure at the exact moment of transfer between two countries while changing radio frequencies. No debris at that location because the plane isn't there. (I think I have a better chance of winning Mega-Millions forty weeks in a row.)
2. They wanted Malaysia ATC to stop tracking them, and they never asked Vietnam to track them.
3. They disabled all transponder transmission, most likely pulled the fuse. The intent was not to be tracked.
4. They then went wherever the went with a perfectly serviceable aircraft.
5. The reason why the aircraft can't be found is they don't want to be found. Occam's razor.
6. The reason why conflicting information is coming from the military is they know far more than they are saying.

Why would you not want to be found?
7. If you can land and hide an airplane in a third word landing strip you could have a $300,000,000 asset.
8. If I were to want something perhaps it makes more sense to do it through the correct channels not through the media.
9. Suicide fails the razor.
10. Hijack is possible.
11. Theft is possible. (Think somalian theft of ships)
12. Catastrophic failure fails the razor.
13. Military intervention is possible.

I would look at every landing strip within six hours of KUL that could land a B777.
Remember bombers were hidden in WWII from view through on ground camouflage.

Quoting Trin (Reply 21):
If that's your result of your Occam's razor interpretation, then I think we are failing to understand the premise behind Occam's razor. The most *likely* explanation is hikjacking by pirates and landing somewhere secret?

Agreed, Trin.
Billreid, the simplest answer is that the plane crashed on its intended course (minimal changes of heading) and the wreckage hasn't been found due to size of floating debris and total incompetance by the search agencies involved. Looking for floating debris of a very small size and quanitity (assuming most of a B777 would sink) is no easy task on something the size of the Gulf of Thailand. That is the simplest answer.

Regarding #7, what do you even mean? What friggin use is a $300M machine if you cannot use it? I'm sorry, 7-12 don't make a lot of sense on the list.

[Edited 2014-03-13 10:49:45]

packcheer · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:46 pm

I have been reading the past 19 parts and just wanted to throw in the two theories I see most likely.

1) mechanical/communications/instrument failure.
Some issue that made them unable to/ significantly hindered communication and navigation ability. They circled back towards KUL but overflew the island, then at sometime later realized they did, turned back, but didnt make it.

2) Piracy - yes we call it traditionally hijacking, but piracy and ransom would explain the lack of debris, crash sight, etc. How to locate the plane now that it has been taken captive.... thats above my head.

Im just a guy at work on a thursday... but after 19 completed parts, thats what I think..... at the moment at least

VC315 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:47 pm

so i'll give it another go since just minutes after my last post Part 19 is locked.
-------------------
Is there a way we can have a sorted list of what Malaysian government / MAF / MH have been saying respectively since the accident? I think there are many conflicting infomration, and it wouldn't be the worst idea to compare them at this stage. And so far we've seen the so called offcial 'debunkings' are not reliable either, rather, many statements go back-and-forth (i.e. on whether the plane has turned and crossed the Malacca Strait). I gradualy to start thinking there's something more serious than an imcompetence in SAR coordination unfolding.

Also, as someone mentioned earlier, the press conference denied the WSJ report that the plance could have flown for another 4 hours or so, but we haven't heard a confirmatiton from either Boeing or RR about this. In this same light, IT IS THE PRESS CONFERENCE that is saying the Chinese satellite images are 'mistakes', but so far we have NOT heard anything from Chinese Government to confirm that statement. And the news articles about satellite images are still very much up and running on major Chinese websites (which is an indication the government approves it, or at least have no objection to it - given the history of news censoring). If they're indeed released 'by mistake', wouldn't them be taken down by now?

RightRudder · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:48 pm

The numbers of the flight, 3 and 7 coincide with the month (March) and date (7th) of it's last know contact. Maybe just a coincidence though. I have read through some of the many threads in this 20 part topic, so If it has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.

richierich · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting rightrudder (Reply 31):
The numbers of the flight, 3 and 7 coincide with the month (March) and date (7th) of it's last know contact. Maybe just a coincidence though. I have read through some of the many threads in this 20 part topic, so If it has already been brought up, I apologize in advance

Actually did not notice that before but what does this mean? Absolutely nothing...

marktci · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting rightrudder (Reply 31):
The numbers of the flight, 3 and 7 coincide with the month (March) and date (7th) of it's last know contact. Maybe just a coincidence though. I have read through some of the many threads in this 20 part topic, so If it has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.

You are aware that this was the March 8th flight, right?

456 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:53 pm

Ok. I have been offline for some hrs but am I right, when reading some news sites and this forum, that 2 old rumors are now merged to 1 rumor:
- plane flew for 4 hours (based on engine mgt system (if IIRC this was denied this morning?))
- plane returned and flew over malaysia again (if IIRC this was denied yesterday))
=
Plane flew 4hrs heading towards india?

Wow. I wonder what the press conference will tell us tomorrow, because it is again coming from the press and notas an official statement is it?

Btw - i understand that the US is heading for this area, as every lead is a lead and needs to be investigated ofcourse. Lets hope they find it there, but it will take 24hrs to get there I understand..

nupogodi · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:55 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):
Plus, I don't even think pilots are able to tell the refuelers to add more fuel, I could be wrong on that regard, but it would be very bizarre if an airliner carried 5.5 hours worth of fuel for a 5.5 hour flight

You are wrong. They definitely can. Pilots have the final say on fuel load. If you constantly take additional fuel that isn't required, your employer will get upset, but it's entirely within your discretion to do so if for some reason you think you might need it.

otf · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:56 pm

Quoting 456 (Reply 34):
Ok. I have been offline for some hrs but am I right, when reading some news sites and this forum, that 2 old rumors are now merged to 1 rumor:
- plane flew for 4 hours (based on engine mgt system (if IIRC this was denied this morning?))
- plane returned and flew over malaysia again (if IIRC this was denied yesterday))
=
Plane flew 4hrs heading towards india?

Wow. I wonder what the press c

This has been debunked by RR, they lost contact with the engines at the same time contact was lost with everything else.

Kaiarahi · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:57 pm

From the Guardian, a short time ago:

"The Pentagon has told the Guardian that the US is moving the USS Kidd destroyer northwest through the Strait of Malacca.

A Pentagon spokesman said he could not confirm that the Pentagon was moving the USS Kidd to search the Indian Ocean but that it is searching the Strait of Malacca, the same area searched by a P-3C surveillance aircraft a few days ago.
The Malaysians requested that a ship come and search the same area the plane had already searched, the spokesman said.

An earlier ABC News report quoted an unnamed “senior Pentagon official” as saying “We have an indication the plane went down in the Indian Ocean.” The Pentagon spokesman told the Guardian that he didn’t know “where ABC is getting that from.”

N328KF · Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:59 pm

Quoting OTF (Reply 36):
This has been debunked by RR, they lost contact with the engines at the same time contact was lost with everything else.

Why do we have to keep rehashing the same crap? RR has to go through investigators. What information is officially released has to be through them, and is dependent upon their reliability.

flyorski · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:05 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 35):
You are wrong. They definitely can. Pilots have the final say on fuel load. If you constantly take additional fuel that isn't required, your employer will get upset, but it's entirely within your discretion to do so if for some reason you think you might need it.

That depends on the airline. With some airlines if the pilots want more they get it. With other airlines the pilots have to contact the flight dispatcher who sends a 2nd release to the fuel provider. I am not sure which is the policy for MH.

hivue · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:05 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 37):
An earlier ABC News report quoted an unnamed “senior Pentagon official” as saying

One problem may be that with the incident having gone on this long with no result the media have started scraping the bottom of the barrel of their "unnamed senior officials" for anything they can get.

KIAS · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:10 pm

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 8):
If you just pull the CB's for the VHF, HF, and SATCOM which I believe are located in the cockpit you've in effect disabled the ACARS.

No. The circuit breakers are located in the E/E bay.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 38):
Why do we have to keep rehashing the same crap? RR has to go through investigators. What information is officially released has to be through them, and is dependent upon their reliability.

Yes, and worth noting again that the raw EHM data is the intellectual property of the airline (MAS) not the OEM (RR).

hz747300 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:14 pm

I think this just proves that anything can happen. In this day and age, we cannot find a modern jetliner after six days in what has to be a relatively tight area, and that blows my mind. AF crashed in open water in one of the largest bodies of water and it was found--debris relatively quickly, the rest after an intense search.

I am baffled that we cannot find anything!

If they did land the plane in a remote strip, how are they taking care of the hostages? The plane is worth $300m, but the people are priceless.

It seems we are not being told everything. We need a leak in order to learn more--otherwise we are stuck.

Instead of these governments doing the search, have any of the family members hired private firms without anything at stake to engage in searching?

747megatop · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:16 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
India’s search team has been asked to explore “very specific coordinates in the Andaman Sea,” said Syed Akbaruddin, a spokesman for the Indian foreign ministry, without elaborating on those coordinates.

Does the Indian navy have the equipment and the expertise to do underwater searches? Or is this going to be just a visual search for floating debris on the surface?

DocLightning · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:16 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 6):

Per US there is indication that Jet crashed in Indian Ocean

Trending all over FaceBook now. I wonder what the "indication" was. We'll never find out, since I'm sure it's a closely-guarded secret how they found out. Top-secret satellite imagery and such, I'd imagine.

Quoting katekebo (Reply 25):
So apparently the "incompetent"Malaysian authorities are still in charge and the US Navy is OK with it.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. It's under Malaysian jurisdiction. It was a Malaysian plane and not operating en route to the US. The only connection to the US is 4 citizens and the fact that the aircraft was built by a US OEM. The US has no choice but to be "OK" with it unless we are going to invade and annex Malaysia for the sole purpose of taking over the investigation!

2008matt · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:17 pm

Say the aircraft did ditch on the water in largely one piece, what sort of thing would they be looking for floating in the water?

hivue · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting KIAS (Reply 41):
Yes, and worth noting again that the raw EHM data is the intellectual property of the airline (MAS) not the OEM (RR).

Someone posted way up-thread that ACARS engine data is often used by engine manufacturers for power by the hour data. Doesn't seem logical for that to go through the customer.

[Edited 2014-03-13 11:20:44]

trex8 · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 19):
If you can land and hide an airplane in a third word landing strip you could have a $300,000,000 asset.

But you couldn't ransom the plane and you can't sell it on eBay or even the parts except to a.nut collectors so its worth nothing.
They could try ransom the people but I think the Chinese might nuke them off the face of the earth.

huxrules · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:19 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 43):
Does the Indian navy have the equipment and the expertise to do underwater searches? Or is this going to be just a visual search for floating debris on the surface?

The Indian Navy does have some shallow water sonars. I was once on a bid package to supply them some training. Didn't win the bid. However when it does to deep water usually they will contract out the labor. AF 447 used Woods Hole. Later an Alcatel Lucent ship went out to retrieve the plane. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the oilfield contractors would be involved.

PIKtoYEG · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:20 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blo...-by-chinese-satellite-live-updates

White House Press Conf: New search area in Indian Ocean

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, has just confirmed that a new search area may be opened in the Indian Ocean, reports the Guardian’s Paul Lewis in Washington.

“It is my understanding the one possible piece of information, or pieces of information, has led to the possibility that a new search area may be opened up over the Indian Ocean,” he said, without detailing the nature of the new information."

Which means it was flying way longer than the last known contact point, considering the cost in repositioning several vessels. And it was flying in a different direction...West.

David L · Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:21 pm

Quoting katekebo (Reply 25):
The whole confusion has been driven by:
1) Irresponsible news outlets that have been spreading rumors (in order to increase readership and hence advertising revenue)
2) Poor translation of Malaysian official statements.

Yes, the Malaysian authorities have released very little information - because they don't (and can't) share unverified data. It's better to stay quiet than spread rumors. If they are not sharing more information it's because they don't have any.

Quoting katekebo (Reply 25):
2) Poor translation of Malaysian official statements.

In many cases a bit worse than that, I think. There have been some fairly liberal "interpretations".

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 37):

Further evidence that the Malaysians are not the most significant source of misunderstandings.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 38):
Why do we have to keep rehashing the same crap? RR has to go through investigators. What information is officially released has to be through them, and is dependent upon their reliability.

The information was released after consultation with RR, Boeing and MH. The most recent information about the USS Kidd doesn't seem to support the implication that RR disagrees.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net