MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 25

k83713 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:07 am

Quoting ivanoruvan (Reply 144):
Come on, how big is an effort to check the background of 239 passengers? Why are we talking about the pilots and iranians only?

I'm sure we know a tiny portion of what's really going on now in the field of specialized services. Since it's confirmed hijack (as a major and most logical cause), a lot of parts are moving now and that has not a lot to do with aviation anymore.

SCQ83 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:08 am

The 8:11 AM means that the plane likely ran out of fuel and crashed.

So according to the Malaysian government, there are two likely scenarios. Crash on land and crash on the Ocean.

Crash on land would likely mind kidnapping. However I wonder why potential hijackers would let the plane them ran out of fuel. The possible scenario I can think of is that they would have a target (a la 9/11) and the pilots would try to land/crash in a remote area not to create a larger disaster. Another option would be like the Ethiopian B767, that the hijackers would be so "dumb" that would not believe pilots and would ask them to fly to somewhere the plane could not reach with the fuel it had (yet in this time of Wikipedia...). But then in this case, why would have the pilots turned off all communication?

Crash on land would also raise more questions... how is it possible that no one has seen anything? Even if there are remote areas in China or the Himalayas... there is a limit to remoteness... and a B777 would be certainly easier to find on land than below the Ocean (i.e. satellites). A crash on land would potentially mean some survivor. 239 passengers on the plane today would likely mean hundreds of technological devices (mobile phones, iPADs...)... I would find hard to believe that all of them would be destroyed and there would no way to find any of them.

Crash on the Indian Ocean would probably mean action from one of the pilots. Why would a hijacker take the plane to the middle of nowhere? It seems to me more consistent with the fact that absolutely nothing has been found.

The hacking theory is interesting... and scary.

slinky09 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:08 am

Rereading the FlyingwithFish tweets, a few stand out, such as:

"A Terrorist wants to spread terror and get credit. A cartel wants whatever it wants & leaves no evidence behind"

"Because it is not terrorism , it is theft or abduction with collateral damage"

"They want a who or what on that plane"

"I thought someone seated in the pointed end of #MH370 is fully complicit in whatever happened"

" Also addressed the zero cargo being screened"

"On Tuesday I started tweeting about cargo x-ray being down at KUL, now it seems only #MH370 pushed without its cargo screened"

He has been very consistent in saying it's not the plane that is wanted, but something on board, and that the plane is on the ground but unlikely to fly again.

Only repeating this because some of his information has subsequently been corroborated, such as flying for 3,675 miles (or seven hours) from the last known point ... however he may be sniffing glue!

flood · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:12 am

Quoting nm2582 (Reply 121):
For those not following the "flyingwithfish" twitter feed (twitter.com/flyingwithfish...some really interesting stuff being posted up.

Here is his guess, which he says could be wrong but which he claims works out with miles and time in the air based on info from his "sources":

Personally, that strikes me as being a little "out there" - but I guess nothing can really surprise me anymore. That said, I do lend credence to the previous WSJ report which indicated the satellite transmissions were on an hourly basis and the last one was apparently received while the aircraft was above the Indian Ocean. If accurate, that would put a big hole in his routing.

Airbus747 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:14 am

Would a well-prepared tactically minded hijacker (regardless of whether a member of the flight crew or not) who wanted to confuse those looking for him and went to great lengths, considered switching off comms, etc. fly a straight route?

If it was a deliberate act by someone who didn't hijack purely for PR/terrorist reasons (at least, not with immediate demands), he surely must have taken into account multiple ways of confusing those trying to track him.

Imagine he was as smart as an A-nutter investigator

and asked himself:
"What can I do to put everyone on the wrong track?"

Switch off communications, fly zig zag, up and down, head one direction and allow for some fake signals to be sent, but then another while everyone's attention is the previous direction.

Of course, everything is possible - what I'm trying to add is simply that if the pilot/hijacker (and their accomplices) wanted to move stealthily, he/they might always be one step ahead of any theory we could come up with.

Question: is there any device or system with enough power to disable/jam all mobile phone communications within an aircraft?

k83713 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:17 am

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 146):
While theoretically it might be possible to reach Iran, I struggle to see a case for why Iran would ever allow this. So far Iran has behaved rather logical on the worldstage and being a few steps away from being bombed as it is and having invested a fair bit of effort into being integrated into the world of commerce again, Iran should abandon this and hijack a MH airline.

Agree, Iran version would be too simple and thick smelling to be truth, esp. if the flight ends just around the corner of nuclear facility.
Also there was a good spoiler at the forum for the version of further plane usage: why to bother with such efforts of hi-jacking when you can simply take the plane not in operation anymore from scrap-yards, or a new phantom airline? You don't need people aboard stolen jet also. Also, why 777 and not anything smaller to stay not that big while hijacking? 737 would be enough for dirty bomb and also not so many people which can tackle hijack attempt.
No, doesn't look as a good reason here.

wingz · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:19 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 70):
The ACARS controller is a separate box from the Sat modem from what I understand, so if something goes wrong with ACARS or it is turned off the satcom modem which can be used by other systems would still work and send its "keep alive messages" similar to how any modem or VOIP terminal does to its host network

Quoting tomlee (Reply 109):
It probably crashed into the water somewhere around there as it is quite possible the last satcom keep alive message was the literal last message before impact.

I guess tomlee's scenario applies to the case of the aircraft flying for the 5 hours or so of SATCOM pings. Here's an alternative idea (but need some tech input to establish its viability):

How is the SATCOM modem powered? Is it conceivable that, following a crash into the sea, that the part of the airframe on which both this system + antenna are mounted is still floating and somehow it may still be powered. Is there some independent battery that might do this? Then the pings might continue until that piece of structure finally sinks. In this case the aircraft would still be in the area where contact was lost.

Starlionblue · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:19 am

Quoting COOEE (Reply 147):
Is there any cockpit warning in modern aircraft on low oxygen levels? A sudden decompression would trigger oxygen masks, but what about a slow leak? How long would it take for everyone to loose consciousness? The cabin would have settled down after feeding, probably most would have gone to sleep especially at such a late time. But would the crew notice anything unusual on low oxygen. You can get quite irrational in your decision making before you pass out. surely people have different tolerances here, and notice other becoming confused ahead of themselves? Could hypoxia account for the transponders being switched off, and the change of course. it would imply switching off the autopilot.

Decompression and pilot incapacitation has been considered many times in these threads.

To answer your questions, yes there are alarms. They don't trigger on oxygen level but on cabin altitude. Slow or fast leak doesn't matter as they go off when a certain cabin altitude is reached. I think the figure is 10000ft or 12000ft.. At 14000ft cabin altitude the masks in the cabin drop automatically.

At 35k feet time of useful consciousness is 30-60 seconds so "plenty" of time.

Conceivably, you could have a slow leak and a malfunctioning alarm, but this seems rather far fetched.

Airbus747 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:20 am

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 152):

Sorry if I didn't follow, but who is FlyingWithFish?

Someone from A-net?

jeta380 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:21 am

They said in the media briefing the plane could have gone on two different flight routes. 1. It was last spotted under Kazakhstan and 2. It was on route to Indonesia.

If this is correct information ( and the Prime Minister of Mayalsia said it was), where can you land and store a 777 without anyone knowing about it in those regions?

Excluding the fact the plane could have been crashed into the ocean.

LandSweetLand · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:23 am

Quoting Airbus747 (Reply 158):
Sorry if I didn't follow, but who is FlyingWithFish?

Some guy on twitter.
https://twitter.com/flyingwithfish

ivanoruvan · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:24 am

By the way, if they don't want to over-fuel because it could arouse suspicions, then they are very clear they could use the allowed fuel limit without problems to reach their target. Including small/big diverts here and there to avoid radars.

Now, let me ask you something. Is it possible that you can use simulators to evaluate possible distances within a said fuel limit? Or at least to train yourself with a certain planned route/speed/altitude over and over?

Speaking of possibilities, there are many weird ones too. I think somewhere in northern India, years back (probably more than a decade), a mentally retarded person, on-boarded a stationary train (engine running but no passengers) and took it away. He set the speed to max (just push the lever.. that simple) and the train crashed at the end of the track (miles away from where he started). My memory may not be good with the details but I'm pretty sure it had happened.

Sorry for being off-topic, but just wanted to point that apart from suicidal/terror angles, there are lunatic ones too.

[Edited 2014-03-15 01:28:12]

k83713 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:26 am

Quoting jeta380 (Reply 159):
If this is correct information ( and the Prime Minister of Mayalsia said it was), where can you land and store a 777 without anyone knowing about it in those regions?

Or maybe that "anyone knowing" does not have an intention to let it know further.

tomlee · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:28 am

Quoting wingz (Reply 156):

How is the SATCOM modem powered? Is it conceivable that, following a crash into the sea, that the part of the airframe on which both this system + antenna are mounted is still floating and somehow it may still be powered. Is there some independent battery that might do this? Then the pings might continue until that piece of structure finally sinks. In this case the aircraft would still be in the area where contact was lost.

It is highly doubtful that if the plane crashed and broke up that the satcom modem box and the antenna would be still in one continuous piece with working battery power. I don't believe the modem is direct mounted to the antenna nor does it have self contained power so the plane would have to at least be roughly in one piece for it to work. I don't think there have been many cases of successful water landing in open waters so there is a low probablity for the plane to land on the water and then sink later. Not to mention a successful water landing would mean the emergency beacons could be used and would easily work if the satcom modem still worked.

Finn350 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:29 am

Quoting Airbus747 (Reply 154):
Question: is there any device or system with enough power to disable/jam all mobile phone communications within an aircraft?

As discussed a few thousand posts ago, if the hijacker decompresses the cabin for a half an hour or so, he effectively incapacitates (kills) everyone not in the cockpit. That will prevent any mobile phone call when subsequently flying over land. The other option is that the passengers and cabin crew are not aware anything foul going in the cockpit and thus don't try to communicate with their mobile phones.

LandSweetLand · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:30 am

Quoting ivanoruvan (Reply 161):
s it possible that you can use simulators to evaluate possible distances within a said fuel limit?

Well X-Plane (I'd guess they used this as their sim software) looks to allow fuel limits and can have the 777 as the vessel flown. In fact, there's even a forum dedicated to the 777 aircraft in X-Plane and making sure it runs right..

[Edited 2014-03-15 01:33:28]

slinky09 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:30 am

For those who want to read the PM's full statement, it is here: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/257..._source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

flood · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:32 am

Captain's home now being searched:

"KUALA LUMPUR (REUTERS) - Police began searching the home of the pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 on Saturday, after the country's prime minister confirmed the plane was suspected to have been deliberately diverted, a senior police official told Reuters."
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...sing-planes-pilot-official-2014031

Starlionblue · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:32 am

Quoting ivanoruvan (Reply 161):
Now, let me ask you something. Is it possible that you can use simulators to evaluate possible distances within a said fuel limit? Or at least to train yourself with a certain planned route/speed/altitude over and over?

Of course. But you really wouldn't need a sim. Paper and pencil or there are a number of apps. Many pilots would have such apps on their airline-issued tablets anyway. A pilot with thousands of hours in a jet wouldn't need to train very much unless it was a very unusual airport like Lukla in Nepal.

Heck, you can do most of the planning on a website like Skyvector.

For example:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=22.62077181...4&zoom=11&plan=A.WM.WMKK:A.OA.OAKB

AngMoh · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:33 am

Based on everything, the only thing which makes sense to me is suicide with the purpose of collecting life insurance.

Someone his big problems and decides to end life but still take care of family. Switch off transponder, fly off to middle of nowhere and crash plane in the hope it would never be found. No way to prove suicide so insurance has to pay. And there is a good chance it will work. Without the Inmarsat data, the plane would never be found and even with the data the chance is low.

piliage · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:37 am

Given the insane nature of this story, this puts James Bond type scenarios well in play.

Given the 7 hour additional flight (or should I say broadcasting) time and the possibility of a southern track, that opens up Somalia as a destination.

1) Somali pirates are aggressive and known to go after big targets
2) They have a track record of taking on large hostage attacks
3) This would be the holy grail of piracy

Isolated airports that could take a landing in Somalia include (but aren't limited too)

Abudwak Airport (14,000ft)
Berbera Airport (former emergency strip for the space shuttle 13,500 ft)
Bender Qassim (5,500 ft dirt)
Hargeisa Egal International Airport (8,000 ft)

Night landings are now moot as they were still flying at daybreak. Now, could you get this thing down and hidden without someone on the ground making a call? Highly unlikely, but hell, who knows at this point.

Given the amount of US hardware in Afghanistan, and the amount of military in Pakistan/India, I find the idea that this went on the nothern route a bit suspect. The possibility that this ended up in China somewhere and it is being hushed up is also possible, but I still think a group with the motivation, history, audacity, and funding to do it, outside of islamic terrorists, would be Somali pirates.

Trash away...

jeta380 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:37 am

Quoting k83713 (Reply 162):

Its's clear they wouldn't want anyone to know about it. Forget the play on words. It's time to get educated opinions on where you could land a 777 in those areas , outside of your standard International airport. Without the Flight radar picking them up.

k83713 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:42 am

Quoting Piliage (Reply 170):
1) Somali pirates

I hardly can imagine Somali pirate dealing with FMC and knowing radar coverage, also able to stop all communications devices on board. Other pictures coming like a Somali pirate with AK-47 in the controls deck of the ship telling captain where to go - that would make them navigate to the desired location in MH370 story, but then you should answer how AK-47 or any other significant tool of threat came to the plane....

tomlee · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:43 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 164):
As discussed a few thousand posts ago, if the hijacker decompresses the cabin for a half an hour or so, he effectively incapacitates (kills) everyone not in the cockpit. That will prevent any mobile phone call when subsequently flying over land. The other option is that the passengers and cabin crew are not aware anything foul going in the cockpit and thus don't try to communicate with their mobile phones.

One problem with that theory is that if a few people had a phones on when they fly over land it could automatically connect with the network to register and there would be a record + a tower location to go from and possibly a number of towers reporting that they see various phones with the estimate signal strength. (Not everyone listens to instructions and some might forget that their phone was on in the first place. (It would leave a pretty big data trail that would look quite odd to a cellphone provider, phones rapidly moving between towers, in 9/11 the phones worked and with increasing coverage and better designs they could easily tolerate the fast moving phones. Even jamming cellphones may be detectable if the towers have diagnostics on spectrum use and neighbour/conflict detection which would show a moving blob of interference between towers matching up with the flightpath. (it is difficult to hide from diverse sensors, even stealth aircraft could be found using diverse radio analysis) The problem is of course analysing all this information even if recorded could take a long time if no one is prepared to do it.

KIAS · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:43 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 34):
were I as into flying as he was, and I were going to crash my plane, I'd sure as heck first want to have as much fun as possible until out of fuel.

I think this severely misinterprets the mindset of a) aviators and b) suicidal individuals.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 34):
go up to 45,00

The talk of the plane reaching FL450 does not add up. ~29lbs fuel burned per seat for the ~400nmi until loss of contact...

Unless they dumped fuel, a 77E at that stage of flight would not be able to ascend above ~FL390.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding when it allegedly reached that alt

[Edited 2014-03-15 01:47:44]

rampart · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:47 am

Quoting jeta380 (Reply 159):
They said in the media briefing the plane could have gone on two different flight routes. 1. It was last spotted under Kazakhstan and 2. It was on route to Indonesia.

If this is correct information ( and the Prime Minister of Mayalsia said it was), where can you land and store a 777 without anyone knowing about it in those regions?

That's not what he said. He said that the search was being extended to two corridors: Thailand to Kazakhstan, or Indonesia to the South Indian Ocean. It was not necessarily spotted "under Kazakstan". A post near the end of the previous thread mentioned a location west of Australia, but no further details or confirmation has come of that since the press conference.

-Rampart

DALFA · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:48 am

How many hours do the CVR and FDR actually record? Anyhow, someone knowing how to switch off the transponder and ACARS will most likely also have switched off the CVR...

oly720man · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:48 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 169):
Based on everything, the only thing which makes sense to me is suicide with the purpose of collecting life insurance.

Except, now with all the non-standard behaviour of the flight, who would pay up? And the pilot(s) would know that anything odd would raise suspicions that things weren't normal, if a crash in these circumstances could be described as normal.

bayareapilot · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:48 am

It's possible they were tankering fuel. MH probably gets better fuel pricing at their KUL hub than at an outstation like PEK.

chaseus1 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:49 am

My big question is the PAX and phones also. In an intentional depressurization, someone would gasp for air before others, and someone would make a call... unless it was sudden, like a midair, or like Helios or Payne Stewart.

But accidental, and then the turns and cut comm, transponder, etc... more reason I've felt this was deliberate... but how do u hush the PAX?

piliage · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:49 am

k83713: Agree on all counts. But given the probable is now ruled out, what if they paid BIG MONEY to the co-pilot or pilot as part of a plot?

Again, we are getting into SPECTR Bond scenarios here. But, if it didn't crash in the ocean (and after one week I think we'd see evidence of that even in the Indian ocean, bodies would be discovered) where else could the plane fly and potentially not be detected?

k83713 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:50 am

Quoting jeta380 (Reply 171):
It's time to get educated opinions

As Malaysian PM said, the ambassodors of possible countries are to negotiate on that. But anyway, I feel it's insane to suspect any official airfield big enough to cooperate secretely.
Well, maybe the world going crazy is not something restricted by the laws of physics.

jeta380 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:51 am

Quoting Piliage (Reply 170):
Given the 7 hour additional flight (or should I say broadcasting) time and the possibility of a southern track, that opens up Somalia as a destination.

1) Somali pirates are aggressive and known to go after big targets
2) They have a track record of taking on large hostage attacks
3) This would be the holy grail of piracy

Thanks for your input. There is a number of scenarios that could have made MH-370 disappear. But it's important, no matter how crazy it might sound, its important to address all possibilities. Otherwise you have a high chance of overlooking a viable possibility. I'm not a pilot. I'm an Investigator (not for the aviation industry). So before any one trashes any comments or 'far out' possibilities, can we please hear your expert knowledge into viable possibilities.

Once proven that an option is not viable, then we can rule it out. Not before. Remember that other investigating bodies MAY refer to this forum for suggestions that could open up avenues for them to investigate.

So please, keep the suggestions coming.

[Edited 2014-03-15 01:52:44]

SCQ83 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:51 am

Quoting flood (Reply 167):
Captain's home now being searched:

"KUALA LUMPUR (REUTERS) - Police began searching the home of the pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 on Saturday, after the country's prime minister confirmed the plane was suspected to have been deliberately diverted, a senior police official told Reuters."
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...sing-planes-pilot-official-2014031

I can't believe it took them one week to do this. This guy had a flight simulator at home!

KIAS · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:52 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 169):
Switch off transponder, fly off to middle of nowhere and crash plane in the hope it would never be found.

Yet the report is ACARS was disabled several minutes prior to the transponder. Doesn't sit right that someone went to the E/E bay, sabotaged the AIMS cabinet, then switched off the transponder 14 min later.

slinky09 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:54 am

Quoting rampart (Reply 176):
That's not what he said. He said that the search was being extended to two corridors: Thailand to Kazakhstan, or Indonesia to the South Indian Ocean. It was not necessarily spotted "under Kazakstan". A post near the end of the previous thread mentioned a location west of Australia, but no further details or confirmation has come of that since the press conference.

Sky news just showed a reporter in KL holding up a print out of the possible tracks recorded by the Inmarsat satellite ... I've searched but can''t find it but ... imagine the satellite mid-point in the Indian ocean and drawn circles around it, then draw two lines on one of the circles in opposite directions from the last reported position. One track to the north ends near the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, the other actually off the west coast of Australia (not Somalia as some surmise).

They then said that if the plane flew for seven+ hours on one of these tracks, they begin to understand where it is and are now examining more data to refine that.

Based on an assumption of hijacking, the northerly track seems more likely, since the southerly one ends in the ocean.

KIAS · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:55 am

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 184):
I can't believe it took them one week to do this. This guy had a flight simulator at home!

This info was known on day 1. A pilot owning a copy of flight simulator is not news, nor any indication of villainy.

k83713 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:55 am

Quoting Piliage (Reply 181):

I really hope for signals from Indian ocean not to fade out before the battery is dead. I don't want to believe the plane is in the land and no one from local official authorities ever addressed that. Kidnapping 230 people from the official flight and landing the plane in any jurisdiction will mean something quite big...

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:56 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 169):
Based on everything, the only thing which makes sense to me is suicide with the purpose of collecting life insurance.

Well, one train of thought being put out apparently is that it was flown to Iran as part of an arms smuggling run, with the plane being the medium (cargo not screened on this flight) and both the plane and the passengers being superfluous. In other words, never to be seen again. I'm sure "they" would pay big money for this operation Whomever "they" is.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aK4daf8MD.Bw

Quoting KIAS (Reply 175):
I think this severely misinterprets the mindset of a) aviators and b) suicidal individuals.

Well, since I'm neither, that is quite possible.

-Dave

Backseater · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:57 am

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 141):
Position resolution will depend on timing accuracy in estimating the absolute TOAs in orbit. Just a microsecond will yield an error of hundreds of kms in the ground position, depending upon the geometry, mostly the orbital spacing between spaceborne receivers.

Sorry, just wanted to correct my previous post, of course I meant "millisecond" not "microsecond"

nm2582 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:58 am

To address the questions of how the plane could fly so far into the northern corridor without being detected...here is a thought.

I know that it's the stuff of movies, but there is solid science that two aircraft flying closely together can appear as one single radar blip. If you have the expertise to turn off acars and transponder and whatever else, then turning off TCAS can't be any harder, right?

If you go back to FlightRadar24, and look for a flight that MH370 could have shadowed...there is at least one possibility.

Take a look at KL836 and consider this timeline:

1:21am: MH370 transponder shut down
1:42am: KL836 departs Singapore for Amsterdam, with an initial flight path going NW up the Malacca strait.
2:15am: military radar sees MH370 approximately 200 miles NW of Penang

At this point, KL836 is about 25 minutes "behind" MH370, assuming MH370 were on the same flight path. MH370 is practically directly in the flight path of KL836.

Presume then that MH370 flies slower while crossing the Bay of Bengal, and by the time they are back under primary radar coverage - MH370 is now carefully and closely trailing KL836, and flies onward across India, Pakistan and Afghanistan while doing so.

Also, remember the noise made about flying at 29,500 ft altitude? the KLM was at 30,000; 29,500 seems like a logical place to fly if you intend to meet up with someone at 30,000 in the near future.

MH370 was in the right place at the right time to follow KL836

[Edited 2014-03-15 02:01:12]

[Edited 2014-03-15 02:03:24]

[Edited 2014-03-15 02:10:02]

[Edited 2014-03-15 02:26:11]

[Edited 2014-03-15 02:28:10]

flood · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:58 am

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 186):
Sky news just showed a reporter in KL holding up a print out of the possible tracks recorded by the Inmarsat satellite ... I've searched but can''t find it but ..

I bumped into it on twitter and was just about to ask if someone knew the source. Here it is:

via http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiwRv2yCUAAbJYZ.jpg:large

a/c dxer · Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:59 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 189):
Well, one train of thought being put out apparently is that it was flown to Iran as part of an arms smuggling run, with the plane being the medium (cargo not screened on this flight) and both the plane and the passengers being superfluous. In other words, never to be seen again. I'm sure "they" would pay big money for this operation Whomever "they" is.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aK4daf8MD.Bw

Or shorting Malaysia Airlines stock. Bet those records have been or will be checked.

tomlee · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:00 am

Quoting KIAS (Reply 185):

Turning off the transponder last is a bit crazy and knowing how to turn off the ACARS but not the Sat modem is even more non-nonsensical. Add on the non-sense data received back and the crazy radar tracks and it all looks a bit confusing.

I'm not convinced either way now and am more along the line that there is a lot more information required before they can even have a chance at discovering where the plane crashed.

VC315 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:01 am

Quoting ivanoruvan (Reply 144):
I'm a bit surprised that China remains very calm over this crisis. Not the China I've known. I suspect they are doing a lot more behind the scenes.

Calm in what ways? China has been very active and vocal in this incident...Navy vessels, air force, satellites, sending officials to Malaysia, urging Malaysia to release more information, not to mentioned the abundant information available on Chinese media. All of which make one doubts some of the conspiracy theories that pinpoint Chinese government is behind all these.

And we would have heard eyewitness accounts of the aircraft landing in South China, if it indeed landed...if 8:11 AM is the last satellite pinging, assume that's before the aircraft landed or crashed, that's nearly couple of hours after sunrise - given the density of population in Southern China, people will see things!

YYZatcboy · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:02 am

Quoting chaseus1 (Reply 173):
Any of the members drop off recently... like 7 days ago? J/K

As one of the two head moderators on the X-Plane.org website, I find that joke rather in poor taste and not funny at all.

KIAS · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:02 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 189):
Well, one train of thought being put out apparently is that it was flown to Iran as part of an arms smuggling run

What could possibly be smuggled in a stolen 777 to Iran which Iran could not otherwise acquire on its own? Iran Air is the flag carrier. They have 747Fs. Why wouldn't they just use one of those? Why would they need to steal a plane? The whole idea is preposterous.

tomlee · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:03 am

Quoting flood (Reply 192):
I bumped into it on twitter and was just about to ask if someone knew the source. Here it is:

via http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiwRv2yCUAAbJYZ.jpg:large

Oh that is not good at all if inmarsat is using the global beam and signal math to figure out where it might be it will be very rough (so rough that there are two possible points). I was hoping they connected via the broadband spot beams as that would be far more accurate and would not produce two points of reference. The global beam covers a huge swath of land (hence the name global beam).

KIAS · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:04 am

Quoting tomlee (Reply 194):
I'm not convinced either way now and am more along the line that there is a lot more information required before they can even have a chance at discovering where the plane crashed.

Totally agree. I wouldn't be surprised if half of "what we know" is incorrect. If I had to speculate I'd still lean towards a chain of electrical/mechanical/structural failures.

slinky09 · Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:06 am

Quoting flood (Reply 192):
I bumped into it on twitter and was just about to ask if someone knew the source. Here it is:

Thanks, I just found it but you got there!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net