Quoting EC135 (Reply 45): I wouldn't wonder if the 777 ditched and sank near the deepest point of the Indian Ocean...

I fear that, if MH370 was intentional, it might have been ditched intentionally in one of the deepest parts of the ocean - a 6,000m deep trench area - in which recovering anything might be very, very difficult if even possible at all...

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 46): But, I still have a problem with how you get out of the airplane. You can depressurize and slow down but you still may not be able to get a door open far enough to bail out.

  

Which door would one prefer to jump out of if they wanted to live? I mean, jumping out of any of the pax doors run the very high risk of either being sucked into the engine or hitting the wing (forward doors) or hitting the horizontal stabilizer (any door)... Even getting out of a cargo door has the same risks if that is even possible...

However, If MH370 was taken remotely then no 'James Bond' types would be needed on board to jump out of a door  

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 49): As it was established here already: There can have been only one chain of events!

  

Only one truth...

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 48): Some person (captain, copilot, terrorist) flew the airplane to where he expected it not to be found. If somebody has another realistic and specific scenario that explains what we think we know I'm willing to listen.

Really? A terrorist(s). Speaking of the movies. Goodness gracious.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 50): Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 46):But, I still have a problem with how you get out of the airplane. You can depressurize and slow down but you still may not be able to get a door open far enough to bail out. Which door would one prefer to jump out of if they wanted to live? I mean, jumping out of any of the pax doors run the very high risk of either being sucked into the engine or hitting the wing (forward doors) or hitting the horizontal stabilizer (any door)... Even getting out of a cargo door has the same risks if that is even possible...

You're the one that said "jumped out over Malaysia", I guess you didn't mean it. If you agree it can't be done why ask me how to do it.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 50): However, If MH370 was taken remotely then no 'James Bond' types would be needed on board to jump out of a door

Can't be done.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 51): Really? A terrorist(s). Speaking of the movies. Goodness gracious.

I thought I'd spread the blame around -- isn't anybody that would do something like this a terrorist of sorts.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 52): I thought I'd spread the blame around -- isn't anybody that would do something like this a terrorist of sorts.

Fair enough. Point well made, and well taken, I suppose.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 52): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 50): Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 46):But, I still have a problem with how you get out of the airplane. You can depressurize and slow down but you still may not be able to get a door open far enough to bail out. Which door would one prefer to jump out of if they wanted to live? I mean, jumping out of any of the pax doors run the very high risk of either being sucked into the engine or hitting the wing (forward doors) or hitting the horizontal stabilizer (any door)... Even getting out of a cargo door has the same risks if that is even possible... You're the one that said "jumped out over Malaysia", I guess you didn't mean it. If you agree it can't be done why ask me how to do it.

When / where did I ever say that? It was EC135 who proposed that scenario. See below:

Quoting EC135 (Reply 34): They then started the row of events to not be tracked that easily, incapacitated the pax, programmed the flight to the middle of nowhere and jumped off over Malaysia with the freight from a low altitude (therefore the decent) and leaving the plane on it's route to nowhere.

You later said:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 46): I still have a problem with how you get out of the airplane. You can depressurize and slow down but you still may not be able to get a door open far enough to bail out.

And then, given your knowledge / experience with 777s, I just asked you:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 50): Which door would one prefer to jump out of if they wanted to live?

I agree with your reply 46 in which you state that you might not even be able to get the door open far enough to jump out. And, even if you could, what door would one jump out of? It looks to me like if one jumped out of any door they risk being taken out by part of the plane...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 54): And, even if you could, what door would one jump out of?

Best bet would be dropping the undercarriage, accessing it from the E&E bay and bailing out of there, pressure permitting. Not sure how plausible this would be in flight though. Don't fancy the chances.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 39): This is why I would have liked it if Zaharie's voice was compared to his voice from recorded ATC hand-offs from other past flights. To see if his voice seemed stressed or different in any way to how it usually sounds during a normal hand-off

I mentioned this before in these threads. Seems like a fairly simple thing to do and I would presume it has already been done.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 55): I mentioned this before in these threads. Seems like a fairly simple thing to do and I would presume it has already been done.

There is a problem with that. Who would do the analysis? Or who would pay to have it done? The Malaysians, who we would normally expect to do such things, are hiding everything they can and in general obfuscating and preventing anyone else from gaining access to information re: MH-370.

The four pilots who said that the voice was Zaharie's were brought together by a journalist (I have forgotten who that was at the moment.) The Australians have no business snooping around that part of the investigation (or lack of investigation.)

I suspect that behind closed doors relations are pretty frosty between the Australians and the Malaysian regime.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 55): Best bet would be dropping the undercarriage, accessing it from the E&E bay and bailing out of there

Nope. Even supposing this were possible, the aircraft would not have the endurance to fly until 0819 Malaysia time with the gear down. This airplane was clean, the gear wasn't down, no doors were missing, and the crown wasn't burned through.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 56): There is a problem with that. Who would do the analysis? Or who would pay to have it done? The Malaysians, who we would normally expect to do such things, are hiding everything they can and in general obfuscating and preventing anyone else from gaining access to information re: MH-370.

Malaysia. I personally think that Malaysia would have done a lot more investigation into the disappearance then we know about. Most likely they would have conducted some sort of investigation behind closed doors, whether it be extensive or not. Naturally they would want to know as much as possible about it without anyone else knowing. If you are indeed correct about your theory, giving the voice analysis as an example, it may have told them what they wanted to know, or at least helped them reach a conclusion as to what happened. They may have drawn the conclusion that Zaharie was under no duress (judging by the voice analysis) and that he was indeed responsible for the disappearance. Of course I may be wrong but I am inclined to believe that they would want to know what happened, whether it be compassion or for the airlines protection. Either way I think they might purposely not be doing anything to dispel the notion of their projected ‘incompetence’. The incompetence line naturally helped them in many sticky situations; they can always play that card. Many people seem to think they are incompetent which allows them breathing space, either to perform their own investigations or give them some time. Not blaming Malaysia here, I think any firm or country would do the exact same thing.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 57): Nope. Even supposing this were possible, the aircraft would not have the endurance to fly until 0819 Malaysia time with the gear down. This airplane was clean, the gear wasn't down, no doors were missing, and the crown wasn't burned through.

I know, I don't think this scenario is remotely possible.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 58): Many people seem to think they are incompetent .......... they might purposely not be doing anything to dispel the notion of their projected ‘incompetence’..........

I agree with that completely. I even see evidence of that behavior here on A.net. They are very good at stonewalling.

I reiterate:

Quoting tailskid (Reply 29): Hishammuddin is hiding something that Zaharie didn't think he would be able to hide. IMO

Quoting tailskid (Reply 56): I suspect that behind closed doors relations are pretty frosty between the Australians and the Malaysian regime.

I suspect the same.

It would be nice if Malaysia funded 100% of the search given that it is a Malaysian plane that is missing - regardless of whose SAR zone the Malaysian plane is supposedly in.

Having said that, I just wonder what would happen to the search if Australia cut all funding -(which they won't do given the promise the Australian PM has made regarding the search)- and then the search depended on funding by Malaysia whose real intentions regarding finding out the truth about MH370 are debatable...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 61): It would be nice if Malaysia funded 100% of the search given that it is a Malaysian plane that is missing - regardless of whose SAR zone the Malaysian plane is supposedly in. Having said that, I just wonder what would happen to the search if Australia cut all funding -(which they won't do given the promise the Australian PM has made regarding the search)- and then the search depended on funding by Malaysia whose real intentions regarding finding out the truth about MH370 are debatable...

You certainly have all the peripheral issues covered.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 60): Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 58): Many people seem to think they are incompetent .......... they might purposely not be doing anything to dispel the notion of their projected ‘incompetence’..........

Hypothetical logic:

1) If Zaharie did it, THEN,

2) It was politically motivated (largely) AND

3) what would make the MOST sense is something more complex than simply flying the plane to the SIO, SUCH AS

4) communicating with Hishammuddin some demand or intention (or baiting him to be shot down), AS EVIDENCED BY

5) the quite bizarre observed behavior and disinformation disseminated by Hishammuddin.

And to push this 'conspiracy' (which seems to be a label thrown around here in a futile attempt to discredit those who are putting forth the MOST plausible scenario, btw) one step further, Hishammuddin had the audacity to host a 'party' in Freemantle on the GO Phoenix...and declare the ship fit for sea (I kid you not, HE inspected it and gave it his stamp of approval).

Ironically (or not..haha), the Phoenix has been a dog in comparison with it's compatriot, the FURGO, and has been plagued with problems. It's progress has been most unimpressive.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 63): communicating with Hishammuddin some demand

I have had exchanges with people whom I consider rational who give that idea credence but I don't see it as a possibility. It looks to me as if the Malaysians were in a stupor until sometime between midnight of the tenth and noon of the eleventh; then they took the MH-370 matter out of the hands of the military and the stone wall was erected. I think they figured out something they are not telling the rest of the world about in that time. If they would have been in negotiation with Z on the night of the hijacking I don't think things would have played out that way. I see the attempt to make a 777 and passengers disappear off the face of the earth without a clue as the kind of thing that would appeal to someone with Zaharie's sense of drama.

I don't give any "shootdown" theories, however framed, any credence.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 54): I agree with your reply 46 in which you state that you might not even be able to get the door open far enough to jump out. And, even if you could, what door would one jump out of? It looks to me like if one jumped out of any door they risk being taken out by part of the plane...

My apologies on the EC135 mix up. The Norwegian Special Forces went out the right aft door on the 737-200 and easily cleared the horizontal stabilizer so R3 or R4 would probably work for the 777.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 64): but I don't see it as a possibility.

It remains to be seen, but setting aside cultural 'saving face' as an explanation, I would suggest that there is reason to believe otherwise.

1) I am inclined to believe in a more complex scheme hatched by Zaharie, that would somehow implicate and entwine Hishammuddin.

2) The loiter time raises suspicion. It seems perhaps this (if it indeed happened) was a moment of decision/indecision. It was here where SAT was re-powered as well

3) H lying to an ABC woman during a rather remarkable interview. During the course of the interview, Hishammuddin confirms the following:

a) That he is unwilling to disclose HOW and WHEN he came to first hear about the missing plane. He even claims these important points to be SO DETAILED as to not be able to recall. This rings completely false. If one in his position would remember ANYTHING, it would be where, when and how it was that he first heard about the incident.

b) That KLATCC NEVER attempted to contact the aeroplane that morning. This is baffling, in any and every respect.

c) That he believes the Americans would have shot the aeroplane down, had they theoretically known what he knew (but he KNEW it was friendly). I believe he knew it was Zaharie.

d) MAS not attempting to contact the aeroplane for over 4 hours. This is incomprehensible, IMO.

e) Much more that I will refrain from getting into for the time being.

[Edited 2014-11-20 20:13:09]

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 66): 2) The loiter time raises suspicion. It seems perhaps this (if it indeed happened) was a moment of decision/indecision. It was here where SAT was re-powered as well

There was no loiter time. When you put the flight path together from the turnaround the plane was flying at its maximum possible speed all the way to METAR/POVUS. Even plotting it out at max possible speeds for a 777, not everything attributed to that flight path could have taken place in the time allotted. Passing south of Penang and flying at low altitudes stretches things beyond what appears possible. One of those two events probably never happened.

Download this KML file and load it with Google Earth and you can see the calculations.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kz3cm0ef778btgz/11-14%20MH-370.kmz?dl=0

Here's a timeline:

11:56:08 As the engines were started, 9MMRO initiated an ACARS login.
0:27:27 ATC request for push back begins at 16:27:27.
0:28:00 MH370 left its gate at KLIA slightly before 16:28 UTC
0:30:00 ACARS records doors shut and brakes off
0:32:13 taxiing request
0:40:38 * Tower * 370 32 Right Cleared for take-off. Good night.
0:41:43 MH370 began takeoff roll (16:41 UTC) Logged-On to Ground Earth Station (GES) 305/301, via the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) Inmarsat I-3 satellite
0:42:48 MAS 370 --> Okay level one eight zero direct IGARI Malaysian one err Three Seven Zero (Fariq)
0:46:51 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero Lumpur radar Good Morning climb flight level two five zero
0:46:54 MAS370 --> Morning level two five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero (Fariq)
0:50:06 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero
0:50:09 MAS370 --> Flight level three five zero Malaysia Three Seven Zero (Fariq)
1:01:14 MAS370 --> Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero (TOC) (Fariq)
1:01:19 * ATC * Malaysia Three Seven Zero
1:07:46 ACARS last transmission (VHF) which apparently included the notation of a WP change having been entered since last scheduled report at 12:37. ACARS information included fuel remaining. com loss between 17:07 Z and 18:25 Z
1:07:55 MAS370 --> Malaysian...Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero (Fariq)
1:08:00 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero
1:19:24 * ATC * Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night on radio frequency 120.9 MHz.
1:19:29 MH 370 --> “good night Malaysian Three Seven Zero” (handover to Vietnamese ATC complete by Capt. Zaharie)
1:21:04 MH370 was observed on the radar screen at KLATCC as it passed over waypoint IGARI.
1:21:13 The radar label for MH 370 disappeared from the radar screen at LUMPUR RADAR KLATCC. (Last secondary radar contact) Note: There was no ACARS message for transponder-off therefore, ACARS was off by 1:21:13.
1:22 - Thai ATC Radar reported as losing the MH370 track at this time.
1:28 - Thai military radar tracked a plane flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kuala Lumpur. This track was intermittant but they did see the plane eventually turning right, (toward Butterworth)
1:30 - (estimated) Vietnam begins "frantically" trying to contact the plane - Vietnam sees plane turn around
1:33 - (estimated) 9MMRO passes over Kota Bharu (approximatly) nine witness reports from around Kota Bharu, (The first, and most dependable, described the plane descending as fast.)
1:37 - ACARS misses scheduled transmission (every half hour)
1:38 - HCMATCC made a query to KLATCC on the whereabouts of MH 370 and stated that they had not yet made contact. (HCMATCC = HO CHI MINH Air Traffic Control Center)
1:46 - HCM queried about MH370 again, stating that radar contact was established over IGARI but there was no verbal contact. Ho Chi Minh advised that the observed radar blip disappeared at waypoint BITOD.
1:46 - (estimated) Plane passes southernmost point of Thai airspace; at this point it can be expected to have turned toward waypoint MEKAR (groundspeed plots indicate as direct a route as possible to MEKAR)
2:03 (1803 to 1805Z) no response from MH370 to communications attempts by the satellite (ACARS related)
2.22 – Last Malaysian military primary radar contact, exact location remains unstated, but probably a few miles past MEKAR
2:25 - (18:25-28) Log-On Request to satellite by A/C. (A spike recorded in the Burst Freq offset chart reflects this event) This logon would have been caused by the AES being powered back up (restoring power to the left AC bus.)
2:34 - At POVUS and turning south (estimated)
2:39 - Ground Initiated Telephony Call to 9M-MRO: Zero Duration (Not Answered.) This reset the Inmarsat one hour timer but created no data to make a ping ring for this time.
2:40 - This is the time that Malaysia originally stated as the time radar contact was lost. Later (on 3-11) they re-stated time of lost contact as 2:22 and said the this was (actually) the time MAS was notified of the event.
3:41 - (19:40) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
4:41 - (20:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
5.41 - (21:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
6:41 - (22:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
7:13 - (23:13) Ground Initiated to Air Telephony Call - Zero Duration (Not Answered)
7:24 - Statement released by Malaysian Officials saying contact lost at 2:40 and SAR efforts are underway
8:10:58 - (01:10) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping) (the 40 Degree position line)
8:19:29 - (01:19) Log-On Request (reported as a Partial Handshake), initiated from the aircraft - the whole larger search zone was in daylight, with the sun just rising near 40S 85E, and about 20° above horizon near 17S 107E (sea level)
8:19:37 - An "R-Channel burst" - the last transmission received from the aircraft. At 00:19, the aircraft had been airborne for 7 hours and 38 minutes
9:15:56 - Handshake Request - No Response from Aircraft

Quoting tailskid (Reply 67): Here's a timeline:

Thank you. I will embark on a investigation with this material you have provided.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 67): 1:21:13 The radar label for MH 370 disappeared from the radar screen at LUMPUR RADAR KLATCC. (Last secondary radar contact) Note: There was no ACARS message for transponder-off therefore, ACARS was off by 1:21:13

Was MH paying for ACARS related to aircraft system information -- I thought they had only purchased the minimum takeoff, cruise, etc.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 66): 1:37 - ACARS misses scheduled transmission (every half hour)

If ACARS was scheduled to transmit every half hour why are the ping rings only every hour?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 67): 2:25 - (18:25-28) Log-On Request to satellite by A/C. (A spike recorded in the Burst Freq offset chart reflects this event) This logon would have been caused by the AES being powered back up (restoring power to the left AC bus.)

Or whoever was flying the aircraft reselected the correct satellite after previously detuning it.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69): If ACARS was scheduled to transmit every half hour why are the ping rings only every hour?

It was scheduled to transmit every half-hour. The ping rings are just the ground station checking in. ACARS remained disabled for the duration of the flight.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 41): Why does 9M-MRD have xx-xRC written on the front wheel doors? Were the planes swapped but they forgot to change the front stickers?

as 777Jet has mentioned:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 43): I have been looking at various pics of MRD and it seems that the middle right hand side of the 'D' has faded to make it look like a 'C'.

I guess this one puts a nice explanation to the "C"...

View Large View Medium

Photo © Fabian Lührs

Quoting EC135 (Reply 34): The two hijackers are now already in the cockpit waiting for that one moment to disappear. They then started the row of events to not be tracked that easily, incapacitated the pax, programmed the flight to the middle of nowhere and jumped off over Malaysia with the freight from a low altitude (therefore the decent) and leaving the plane on it's route to nowhere. Sounds a bit like out of a movie, but I guess this is not far from what might has happened on MH370.

If the airplane flew over Penang area as per published information, prior to going northwest and disappearing as it left primary radar coverage... going to low altitude would make the aircraft miss the time and location where it disappeared... and then the endurance would have been significantly reduced. The only possible way to make it (which is cutting it really thin), is to make a high speed (not high rate) climb to around FL270-280... as it would give the highest TAS for it's Mmo and Vmo co-limits. HOWEVER, the airplane would definitely not last until when it did as per Inmarsat timestamp, unless it simply loitered after it disappeared... BUT, if that's the case, it should have been found by now...

Quoting EC135 (Reply 45): Maybe the sensitive freight was left on board... The hijackers flew the plane to a remote and difficult to reach area where the sensitive freight was taken out by military divers until the ditched 777 sank. I wouldn't wonder if the 777 ditched and sank near the deepest point of the Indian Ocean... Floating pieces could have been taken onboard a ship to make it difficult to find its final position. And btw the Malaysians do hide something, why have they put all search efforts to the South China Sea for almost 1 week even they knew the plane turned around !?

Seriously, the "fly the plane to Diego Garcia" conspiracy makes more sense than this!

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 49): Someone who puts 1) into question, in his recent interview, is Tim Clark. A statement to that effect from a person like him does carry substantial weight.

Tim Clark says his pilots don't know how to kill the satcom... yet in Emirates' 777 Flight Crew Operating Manual, which is what the crew uses, if you power the aircraft through the back-up generator through the transfer bus (by killing the main engine generators/IDGs), you'd lose SATCOM and Transponders...
So while he is a person that carries substantial weight... his particular comments on the technical aspects carry little, if not no, weight...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 50): Which door would one prefer to jump out of if they wanted to live? I mean, jumping out of any of the pax doors run the very high risk of either being sucked into the engine or hitting the wing (forward doors) or hitting the horizontal stabilizer (any door)... Even getting out of a cargo door has the same risks if that is even possible...

There is a technique that is little known, that can enable the person jumping out safely out of a passenger door of a jet (depending on the aircraft type too though)... but the problem is, the 777 door wouldn't be able to be opened without it being ripped off... which would then create lots of drag, and also, where's the damn door?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 63): 3) what would make the MOST sense is something more complex than simply flying the plane to the SIO, SUCH AS 4) communicating with Hishammuddin some demand or intention (or baiting him to be shot down), AS EVIDENCED BY 5) the quite bizarre observed behavior and disinformation disseminated by Hishammuddin.

This theory / rumor surfaced within 24 hours of the plane disappearing... nothing has come out of it since.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 63): And to push this 'conspiracy' (which seems to be a label thrown around here in a futile attempt to discredit those who are putting forth the MOST plausible scenario, btw) one step further, Hishammuddin had the audacity to host a 'party' in Freemantle on the GO Phoenix...and declare the ship fit for sea (I kid you not, HE inspected it and gave it his stamp of approval). Ironically (or not..haha), the Phoenix has been a dog in comparison with it's compatriot, the FURGO, and has been plagued with problems. It's progress has been most unimpressive.

I wouldn't be surprised if and the end of the day when it is found, Mr. H2O ended up being the conspirator to turn an accident into a suicide scenario...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 64): I don't give any "shootdown" theories, however framed, any credence.

Me neither... OMFG! You and I agree on something! LOL!

Quoting tailskid (Reply 67): Passing south of Penang and flying at low altitudes stretches things beyond what appears possible.

Agree, there is no evidence that the aircraft passing Penang according to the published track was done at low altitude, and (pending more accurate calculations), doing so at low altitude over Penang area, then climbing back up to be at the point of final disappearance at the time it disappeared, should have cut the aircraft's endurance significantly...

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69): Or whoever was flying the aircraft reselected the correct satellite after previously detuning it.

Can you clarify here? INMARSAT has stated unequivocally that none of it's other satellites communicated with MH370 that morning.

Can you 'detune' from the cockpit? The AES?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 71): I wouldn't be surprised if and the end of the day when it is found, Mr. H2O ended up being the conspirator to turn an accident into a suicide scenario...

Really? Well, you've now done well to discredit yourself, in my eyes. Accident? Give me a break, buddy. No offense, but the notion that this was an accident, coming from someone as respected and well versed in aviation as you appear to be reeks of agenda driven purpose. I don't walk in your shoes, so I am not privy to the reputation you would like to protect (especially on this site), but an 'accident'...good lord.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69): Was MH paying for ACARS related to aircraft system information -- I thought they had only purchased the minimum takeoff, cruise, etc.

My understanding is that they didn't pay for the satellite link but it did report whenever it was within HF radio range. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Inmarsat "data communication log" (pdf from Inmarsat has the following entry at 18:03.
18:03 "No response to Ground to Air DATA-2 ACARS data" Link lost sometime between 17:07:48 and here.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69): If ACARS was scheduled to transmit every half hour why are the ping rings only every hour?

Those are two separate systems. ACARS is the equipment reporting scheme, but the pings are the keep alive sequence for the underlying satellite link.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69): Or whoever was flying the aircraft reselected the correct satellite after previously detuning it.

You are the only person to make this claim here or anywhere else that I know of. That the login sequence is a consequence of a power up is taken as a given fact by everyone except you. Maybe you know something nobody else knows, if so please show us some Boeing or MAS or Inmarsat reference material on this subject. The sat system has been explained as automatically switching satellites as a plane leaves one satellite's area of coverage and enters another. That was one of the tipoffs that the plane didn't fly north along the ping arcs, the plane never logged into the Pacific sat which it would have done if it went north. From the literature I've read, the AES is owned by Inmarsat, they describe it as part of their system.

So show me what you have and I'll dig back into it if need be.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 73): I don't walk in your shoes, so I am not privy to the reputation you would like to protect (especially on this site), but an 'accident'...good lord.

Well, do you have evidence beyond doubt that it was not an accident?
Until you or anyone else has... the possibility of an accident cannot be ruled out, even as no-accident is more likely.
Perhaps you can explain why the satcom had a log-on at 1825UTC and how that ties in with the "conspiracy"/hijack/"whatever-that-makes-it-not-an-accident"?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 74): You are the only person to make this claim here or anywhere else that I know of. That the login sequence is a consequence of a power up is taken as a given fact by everyone except you.

He is not the only one... I back that possibility given by 7BOEING7.
If this was an intentional act, something needs to explain why the AES was unpowered and repowered... because the AES being unpowered and repowered, opens the possibility of this not being an accident.
However,

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 69): Or whoever was flying the aircraft reselected the correct satellite after previously detuning it.

Can explain a logon at 1825UTC through an intentional act... but again, the reason needs to be explained to make sense why someone would do it.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 75): He is not the only one... I back that possibility given by 7BOEING7.

You merely parroted 7BOEING7. Agreeing is not advancing a technical point.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 70): It was scheduled to transmit every half-hour. The ping rings are just the ground station checking in. ACARS remained disabled for the duration of the flight.

I was under the impression MH had purchased the minimum engine reporting and nothing else so the only transmissions would be takeoff, cruise, etc and nothing else or did they have a more robust reporting regime? Maybe I missed something in the last 73 parts. You're correct about no ACARS starting early in the flight.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 72): Can you clarify here? INMARSAT has stated unequivocally that none of it's other satellites communicated with MH370 that morning. Can you 'detune' from the cockpit? The AES?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 74): The sat system has been explained as automatically switching satellites as a plane leaves one satellite's area of coverage and enters another.

Yes, it does auto tune as your location varies, however you can go into the FMC CDU and manually tune stations. This allows you to attempt to tune a station on the other side of the globe where you couldn't possibly get a signal. Since up here in the northwest where we're on the edge of a couple of stations and we didn't pay for full coverage we could force the system to communicate with specific satellites.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 75): Well, do you have evidence beyond doubt that it was not an accident? Until you or anyone else has... the possibility of an accident cannot be ruled out, even as no-accident is more likely. Perhaps you can explain why the satcom had a log-on at 1825UTC and how that ties in with the "conspiracy"/hijack/"whatever-that-makes-it-not-an-accident"?

Well now, this then becomes a game of semantics and interpretation. The generally accepted standard of guilt by most on this site I would presume to be 'beyond reasonable' . I believe that this has been established through the exclusion of all other possibilities (including the FO, btw) AND the inclusion of the known facts (the timing, the voice identification, the carnal knowledge of FIR's, substantial knowledge about the 777's electronics, capability, opportunity, execution etc...) AND the political drivel emanating from Zaharie. IF you bother to read his many diatribes, he TELLS you (us) in so many words what he feels is an obligation he has to take action, to resist, to not be stopped. It's plain as day, and I'm watering it down here.

If I were to try the case of MH370 in a US courtroom, could I get a guilty verdict based on this (and much more) circumstantial evidence? Yes, I have no doubt that the jury would return said verdict.

As for SAT re-powering, it's immaterial, really. We don't NEED to know why. He clearly had his reasons, which seem to baffle you. So be it. It doesn't matter one bit in relation to WHO was responsible. To imply that this particular aspect of the mystery somehow precludes one from assigning guilt is just a red herring. It's all you've got, so you keep going back to the well. Nice try.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 75): the satcom had a log-on at 1825UTC.. how (does) that tie in with the "conspiracy"/hijack/"whatever-that-makes-it-not-an-accident"?

This event was the result of the re-powering of the left AC bus.

Your fellow obfuscater has made a so far unsupported claim that the satellite frequency can be changed from the flight deck. If true, that does not mean that swapping frequencies initiates a login on each new frequency, a power on/of sequence may still be necessary. Also, if true it does not mean that that is what happened.

Dropping the lefy AC bus depowers a number of things besides the AES. Without the bus tie relay energized it would kill the left flight controls DC bus which would put the pilot's flight controls in its most primitive mode. Without a 777 to experiment on we can't say exactly what the goal of the power off / on was.

Do we have to repeat this conversation every few days??

[

[Edited 2014-11-20 23:10:05]

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77): you can go into the FMC CDU and manually tune stations.

Please supply a citation.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 75): Can explain a logon at 1825UTC through an intentional act... but again, the reason needs to be explained to make sense why someone would do it.

I was just pointing out that one doesn't need to depower part of the electrical system to terminate SATCOM communications. I have no particular preference as to how it was accomplished but I would put forth two possible reasons for doing it:

1) I don't want anybody calling me on the SATCOM or,

2) I don't want anybody in back making a call -- which I believe the understanding is MH didn't have the passenger seat capability installed, however some airplanes have the ability to make "medical assistance" SATCOM calls from the cabin.

An hour later it gets turned back on (I have no idea why) as everybody in back is incapacitated by then.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 79): This event was the result of the re-powering of the left AC bus.

Then please explain why if this was an intentional act, did the crew depower and repower the left AC Bus, and why?
You've come up with various explanations in the past but when confronted with why those cannot be the plausible explanation, you either change to something else, or go silent.

I gave you a plausible method, but you rejected, despite it making more sense... but the why, needs answering... Until those are answered and your explanation cannot be refuted, then the questions keep going.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 79): If true, that does not mean that swapping frequencies initiates a login on each new frequency,

Here's some help for you...  
Ever heard of the satcom logon page on the FMC?

7BOEING7 explained it very well:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 77): Yes, it does auto tune as your location varies, however you can go into the FMC CDU and manually tune stations. This allows you to attempt to tune a station on the other side of the globe where you couldn't possibly get a signal. Since up here in the northwest where we're on the edge of a couple of stations and we didn't pay for full coverage we could force the system to communicate with specific satellites.

For Tailskid's benefit, here's the part from the manual:


And also, the I-3 IOR GES was re-arranged a few years ago, and several operators did have problems in this part of the world when logging on to the new GES under auto-logon, and some even had difficulty under the manual logon... with all sorts of various kinds of variations to the problem and problems on the troubleshooting...

7BOEING7's explanation, is valid... and provides a much easier and logical method to accomplish (apart from the re-logon, which can only be explained (as with the other methods) with "I have no idea why" or "for whatever reason."

Quoting tailskid (Reply 79): Do we have to repeat this conversation every few days??

So just because you refuse to answer while you repeatedly insist this is murder beyond doubt gives me no right to repeat the questions?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 80): Please supply a citation.

See above.

The explanation is to add to what 7BOEING7 said. It doesn't add to the arguments whether Zaharie did it or not.
Same with the killing the satcom through powering the aircraft by the backup generators... I'm providing you with alternative methods to support both your theory (Zaharie did it) and mine (This could have been an accident), and whoever else ("someone did it but we don't know who).

While you're asking for a citation, here's one for the "powering the aircraft through the backup generators" which you didn't seem to like...


and



Enjoy it  

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 78): As for SAT re-powering, it's immaterial, really. We don't NEED to know why. He clearly had his reasons, which seem to baffle you. So be it. It doesn't matter one bit in relation to WHO was responsible. To imply that this particular aspect of the mystery somehow precludes one from assigning guilt is just a red herring. It's all you've got, so you keep going back to the well. Nice try.

There is a difference between "I think he did it" and "I am sure he did it"...
For "I think he did it", yes, there is adequate evidence... but for "I am sure he did it", there isn't...
To say the SAT on and off is immaterial, is adequate for "I think he did it", but definitely not for "I'm sure he did it". Until there is evidence that can rule out "accident", accident, remains a possibility no matter how minute.

If you believe the current evidence is adequate, then by all means, start the court process...  

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 81): 2) I don't want anybody in back making a call -- which I believe the understanding is MH didn't have the passenger seat capability installed, however some airplanes have the ability to make "medical assistance" SATCOM calls from the cabin.

If I remember correctly, it is installed on all their 777s... on the other side of the in-seat IFE controller...

View Large View Medium

Photo © Chris Finney Contrabandit Photos


[Edited 2014-11-21 00:31:55]

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 82): your theory (Zaharie did it) and mine (This could have been an accident),

So, your theory is?

[quote=mandala499,reply=82]For "I think he did it", yes, there is adequate evidence..[/quote}

I'm confused. If this isn't a blatant contradiction of position, I'm not sure what is. Unless, of course, you care to produce adequate evidence of an accident?         

[Edited 2014-11-21 07:29:15]

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 81): An hour later it gets turned back on (I have no idea why) as everybody in back is incapacitated by then.

Everthing is pointing towards Mr. Zaharie, this seems obvious. However there are some circumstances that are unclear (freight issue / calling Mr. Zaharie only hours before the flight / the role of the Malaysian government, do they hide something? / ...) Putting all together I still have my doubts if Mr. Zaharie is the person responsible for MH370 disappearing. Everything that points to him is his voice and some sort of lyrics/poem, isn't it? I just want you to keep in mind, that there are programms available on the marked called e.g. MorphVox for easily changing your own voice, no problem to change your voice sounding like a women, men, movie star, or Mr. Zaharie... IF it was a special operation carried out by some sort of intelligence agency and that could NOT be ruled out - although - I say it again - everthing is pointing towards Mr. Zaharie - please keep in mind, that other scenarios also might have happened !

Quoting tailskid (Reply 79): Dropping the lefy AC bus depowers a number of things besides the AES. Without the bus tie relay energized it would kill the left flight controls DC bus which would put the pilot's flight controls in its most primitive mode. Without a 777 to experiment on we can't say exactly what the goal of the power off / on was.

If you follow the information "mandala499" provided above (and some he didn't but it's in the manual), to remove power from any/all of the flight controls DC buses is almost impossible. Even after you turn off both L&R main generators and the L&R backup generators the RAT drops and will power the L&C flight control buses then the APU starts. You can turn off the APU but you can't turn off the RAT. The airplane is still not in Direct mode ("most primitive mode"), you're in Secondary mode which except for losing some envelope protections is not much different then Normal mode for the flight controls. If you want to be in "the most primitive mode" all you have to do is reach up and flip the Primary Flight Controls switch to DISC.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 79): Do we have to repeat this conversation every few days??

Apparently, yes.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 82): Here's some help for you...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 82): For Tailskid's benefit, here's the part from the manual:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 85): Even after you turn off both L&R main generators and the L&R backup generators the RAT drops and will power the L&C flight control buses then the APU starts. You can turn off the APU but you can't turn off the RAT. The airplane is still not in Direct mode ("most primitive mode"), you're in Secondary mode which except for losing some envelope protections is not much different then Normal mode for the flight controls. If you want to be in "the most primitive mode" all you have to do is reach up and flip the Primary Flight Controls switch to DISC.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 82): Then please explain why if this was an intentional act, did the crew depower and repower the left AC Bus, and why?

Previously answered:

Quoting tailskid (Reply 79): Dropping the lefy AC bus depowers a number of things besides the AES. Without the bus tie relay energized it would kill the left flight controls DC bus which would put the pilot's flight controls in its most primitive mode. Without a 777 to experiment on we can't say exactly what the goal of the power off / on was.

This is like debating with Hishammuddin himself.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 87): Without the bus tie relay energized it would kill the left flight controls DC bus which would put the pilot's flight controls in its most primitive mode.

Did you read 7BOEING7's response?

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 85): The airplane is still not in Direct mode ("most primitive mode"), you're in Secondary mode which except for losing some envelope protections is not much different then Normal mode for the flight controls.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 87): This is like debating with Hishammuddin himself.

Indeed!

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 88):

Somehow you managed to miss two out of three sentences. Are you another employee of the Malaysian government?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 78): If I were to try the case of MH370 in a US courtroom, could I get a guilty verdict based on this (and much more) circumstantial evidence? Yes, I have no doubt that the jury would return said verdict.

I have no doubt that the jury would return a 'not guilty' verdict.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 66): 1) I am inclined to believe in a more complex scheme hatched by Zaharie, that would somehow implicate and entwine Hishammuddin.

If the above was the agenda, and very well could be, then the following needs to be considered:

1) Was it a plan that had been in the works for some time or was it a snap decision? And, how many others were involved if Zaharie was not acting alone?

If it was a snap decision by Zaharie and he was acting alone it would have been harder from him to contact or negotiate with H. Did he do this before or after the point at when MH370 attempted to go silent? How? How could somebody in the plane contact the ground without others being aware of it in order to make a deal? The only cell phone activity was supposedly the signal picked by the FO's phone... I think if this is what happened, others were involved, helping Z...

If it was a plan that had been in the works for some time, then it is very possible that others were involved. Perhaps Zaharie et al. were waiting for the Anwar verdict - and the guilty verdict meant that Zaharie would get the call to come to work that night. The guilty Anwar verdict could have been the trigger for what was to come. The person in operations who called Zaharie that night could have been in on it in this scenario as someone with the power to put Zaharie on that flight would have needed to be in on it. However, at what stage was H going to be implicated in this? Whether the events on MH370 were planned or the result of a snap decision, if H was going to be implicated he could not have been informed until after the plane departed - otherwsie he could have stopped the departure if he was aware that something was going to happen. The issue is - how was H contacted in order to be implicated after the departure? Then, how could H have been contacted by Z or somebody on the plane whilst it was flying without there being any record of it? Or, could there have been a staff member at MH - also in on it - who was in the middle of all communications between the plane and H? Finally, if such a communication was possible and did take place, would there be a way to hide it? To entwine H the plane must have been in contact with him in order to know what the outcome of any type of deal or negotiation would be. But if this is what happened - how was the communication taking place between the ground and the plane? The time between in which the plane turned back and crossed land could have been the negotiation window - and if a negotiation failed - or if there was a change of plan - it could back up the following point:

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 66): It seems perhaps this (if it indeed happened) was a moment of decision/indecision. It was here where SAT was re-powered as well

[Edited 2014-11-21 18:23:43]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 91): 1) Was it a plan that had been in the works for some time or was it a snap decision? And, how many others were involved if Zaharie was not acting alone? If it was a snap decision by Zaharie and he was acting alone it would have been harder from him to contact or negotiate with H. Did he do this before or after the point at when MH370 attempted to go silent? How? How could somebody in the plane contact the ground without others being aware of it in order to make a deal? The only cell phone activity was supposedly the signal picked by the FO's phone... I think if this is what happened, others were involved, helping Z... If it was a plan that had been in the works for some time, then it is very possible that others were involved. Perhaps Zaharie et al. were waiting for the Anwar verdict - and the guilty verdict meant that Zaharie would get the call to come to work that night. The guilty Anwar verdict could have been the trigger for what was to come. The person in operations who called Zaharie that night could have been in on it in this scenario as someone with the power to put Zaharie on that flight would have needed to be in on it. However, at what stage was H going to be implicated in this? Whether the events on MH370 were planned or the result of a snap decision, if H was going to be implicated he could not have been informed until after the plane departed - otherwsie he could have stopped the departure if he was aware that something was going to happen. The issue is - how was H contacted in order to be implicated after the departure? Then, how could H have been contacted by Z or somebody on the plane whilst it was flying without there being any record of it? Or, could there have been a staff member at MH - also in on it - who was in the middle of all communications between the plane and H? Finally, if such a communication was possible and did take place, would there be a way to hide it? To entwine H the plane must have been in contact with him in order to know what the outcome of any type of deal or negotiation would be. But if this is what happened - how was the communication taking place between the ground and the plane? The time between in which the plane turned back and crossed land could have been the negotiation window - and if a negotiation failed - or if there was a change of plan - it could back up the following point:

I don't believe I've ever encountered so many strawmen in one place at one time in my whole life!

Quoting tailskid (Reply 92): I don't believe I've ever encountered so many strawmen in one place at one time in my whole life!

So because you are so certain that Zaharie acted alone -(a scenario in which the SatCom re-log on undermines)- you are not even prepared to consider that Zahaire might have had others helping him?

The Anwar verdict.
He was not scheduled to fly MH370 that night - he was called up.
Why the flight path the plane flew - back across Malaysia?
Why did the SatCom re-log on after going offline earlier?
Why all the cover-up behaviour from officials, especially H?

BTW you did not quote the whole post - which is something you accuse others of doing all the time - talk about hypocrisy!

[Edited 2014-11-21 18:56:09]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 93): Why did the SatCom re-log on after going offline earlier?

Because power to the left AC bus was restored.

(once again)

Quoting tailskid (Reply 89):
Somehow you managed to miss two out of three sentences. Are you another employee of the Malaysian government?

As far as I can tell, the Professionals on these threads have a lot of patience with you, explaining to you in detail how various aircraft systems work and what is possible. What do you do in return?
You attack them on a personal level. Not good ....

Somehow this got double-sent! Sorry about that ....
(Maybe it's to drive home the message.)

[Edited 2014-11-21 22:59:54]

Quoting tailskid (Reply 89): Somehow you managed to miss two out of three sentences. Are you another employee of the Malaysian government?

As far as I can tell, the Professionals on these threads have a lot of patience with you, explaining to you in detail how various aircraft systems work and what is possible. What do you do in return?
You attack them on a personal level. Not good ....

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 95): As far as I can tell..........

You must be having trouble following the thread. That's little surprise from a guy who seriously suggested here that somebody might have used a nuclear device to make MH-370 disappear:

Quote: Reply 114 part 71: "But a miniature nuclear device comes to mind immediately. And, apparently, the radiation from such a 'small' device would be quite negligible."

and who for months posted opinions about why Inmarsat data was invalid and then finally stated:

Quote: "I personally wouldn't have a clue about BTO and BFO information."

"As far as you can tell" doesn't seem to get very far.


But I thank you for this opportunity to provide a short overview of the conversation relating to the loss of satellite communications and the subsequent 18:25 login it seems to be needed.

A few days back 7BOEING7 informed us that there was a second way to force a logon of the AES other than depowering the left AC bus. (On the flight deck here is an ability to directly control the AES, so this could be used to achieve a similar effect, as seen by the satellite, as powering the ARS off and on.) IMO this new information changed the probability that the login at 18:25 was brought about by the restoration of power to the left AC bus from near 100% to about 99.9%.

In short it changed nothing. Here's why.

Removing power to the left AC bus accomplishes more than one thing, it also removes power to the utility bus which disables inflight entertainment system: eliminating the satellite phone in the cabin. It appears to also remove power for the camera covering the flight deck door. Thus it also may remove power to the flight deck door locking system, we can't know for sure and this is not the place to explore this topic anyway so I think it best to bring this subject to its conclusion here. I have read people who have represented themselves as 777 flight officers stating that the left AC bus supplies power for left seat envelope protection, I have taken that for fact and still see that as a possibility, but it isn't a necessity to provide a reason for the dropping of left AC bus power.

The AAIB report a provides us with a rudimentary power chart: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/..._2009_n786ua/n786ua_appendices.cfm

We can see that the left AC bus supplies the left utility bus and the left transfer bus which in turn feeds several other logical units including the left flight control DC bus. We can see that the flight controls can also get power from the right DC bus, IF the bus tie relay is energized. They can also get power from the batteries, but when we investigate the 777s power system, Boeing reminds us that there is load shedding, so we can't be sure even about the flight controls power let alone all the other systems fed by the left AC bus.

Thus, what the impact is if the left AC bus is de-energized, remains unclear in any detail. But we know that it will have an effect on multiple systems. Apparently it will have major impacts as we were warned:

Quote: mandala499 (Reply 134 part 72): (switching both IDGs off and back on again) isn't as extreme as deliberately depowering and repowering the left main AC bus.

That's quite a statement considering how drastic the idea of switching off both IDGs. Even I, who think that the left AC bus is critical to the operation of a 777 see that as an overstatement.

In a much earlier post I stated:

post 166 part 71 "What the exact features of the envelope protection system were that the person operating 9MMRO wanted to disable or exactly what features of flight control this person wanted to restore in the western Malacca Strait I can't say as I don't have access to a 777 to simulate the assumed sequence of events."

Can't we just leave it at that? And if you need to then just use "envelope protection system" as a metaphor.

This whole idea of searching for the exact reason for the removal of left AC bus power is putting the cart before the horse anyway. The Inmarsat dropout, and the known need for a hijacker to depower the utility bus gives us enough evidence to assume that the AC bus was tripped. After all the Inmarsat function was Zaharie's mistake. Without that he may well have made an airliner disappear into thin air.

[Edited 2014-11-22 01:39:47]

Quoting tailskid (Reply 97): "What the exact features of the envelope protection system were that the person operating 9MMRO wanted to disable or exactly what features of flight control this person wanted to restore in the western Malacca Strait I can't say as I don't have access to a 777 to simulate the assumed sequence of events."

Then when a B777 test pilot and someone with wide experience in air transport safety and investigations patiently explain the envelope protections (no need for a simulator), you attack them personally, as you have been doing for multiple threads.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 89): Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 88): Somehow you managed to miss two out of three sentences.

They were not germane to the point I was making.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 89): Are you another employee of the Malaysian government?

No. Are you?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 98): They were not germane to the point I was making.

You're a bit tightly focused don't you think?

[Edited 2014-11-22 06:12:09]