Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:03 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 89):
Please, everybody! There's no point in arguing with a blind donkey who accuses the whole world of lying when they present facts that have been put forward by reputable investigation agencies.. Let's just leave it bray to itself, instead of destroying the discussion.

Another way to say it would be that if you don't feed the troll, the troll usually goes away. Because the troll loves to argue (or gets paid by the word).
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:05 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 95):
That's why no seat cushions have washed up on any beach, and most likely won't ever. The idea that something from MH370 is bound to wash up eventually is mistaken.

How long do these seat cushions float if they are not shredded by ships propeller or by a shark? Do they float indefinitely or do they sink after some time?
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:07 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 99):
one failure scenario that nobody thought could occur that sent all that redundancy to theory only and yes, systems failed in ways that were thought impossible.

UA 232 comes to mind. Systems redundancy was thrown out the window with this incident and had a prfound impact on how future aircrafts were designed.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:48 am

Quoting art (Reply 100):
I don't see how this can even be tentatively linked to MH370 without some kind of marker and audit trail eg the towelette was in packaging showing a batch number and records were kept of when MH started using items from that batch.

I agree.

Even if it did come from MH370, unless there is some kind of 'marker' or 'batch number' that links that particular item to that particular flight like you said, there will be no way to prove that it came from MH370.

I doubt that MH keeps such detailed records and I also doubt that the MH towelette packets are marked with a batch number anyway - but I could be wrong.

Also, if there has been no other items from MH found anywhere along that coastline for hundreds of miles in any direction, then I find it odd that just one tiny / extremely light towelette could be the only item that made it there - I think it was placed there but I guess we will never know.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1950
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:25 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 104):
I agree.

Even if it did come from MH370, unless there is some kind of 'marker' or 'batch number' that links that particular item to that particular flight like you said, there will be no way to prove that it came from MH370.

I doubt that MH keeps such detailed records and I also doubt that the MH towelette packets are marked with a batch number anyway - but I could be wrong.

Also, if there has been no other items from MH found anywhere along that coastline for hundreds of miles in any direction, then I find it odd that just one tiny / extremely light towelette could be the only item that made it there - I think it was placed there but I guess we will never know.

I hope it is from MH370, although that is just me hoping something actually turns up from the flight. I found the package to look very clean and without any damage, not really something I expect of something that has floated for months in the ocean and then been left on a windy beach for who knows how long.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:35 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 105):

That's not the actual pack shown, just a recreation. But it's now moot - the ATSB has stated it's very unlikely that it came from MH370

Quote:
Malaysia Airlines Towelette Found on Beach Not From MH 370, Say Officials
http://time.com/3738544/mh370-towele...alia/


[Edited 2015-03-11 03:35:54]
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1950
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:38 am

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 106):
That's not the actual pack shown, just a recreation. But it's now moot - the ATSB has stated it's very unlikely that it came from MH370

Thanks...makes sense... 
 
FlyDeltaJetsATL
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:39 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:42 pm

I would like to know more about the 'reattachment' of FO Fariq's cell phone to a cell phone tower in Malaysia. I have found several dated articles in which it is stated that the 'reattachment' of the FO's phone to the cell phone tower does not necessarily mean that a phone call was attempted - it could just mean that the phone was switched on. Nonetheless, has it been 100% verified by the cell phone company or authorities that there was indeed any signal picked up from the FO's phone or could this bit of information just be tabloid junk? Sorry if this has been mentioned but I cannot find any reliable / credible source that confirms that it was 100% true that a cell phone signal from the FO's phone was picked up. Even if the cell phone signal was picked up, it does not necessarily mean that the FO attempted to make a call for help - we will never know the reason for the 'reattachment' if it actually did happen. If the Captain did this, and the FO was outside of the cockpit meaning that the Captain was alone in the cockpit (as one poster believes was the case) there is every chance that the FO did not have his phone with him if he left the cockpit. If his phone was switched off as it should have been, there would be no need for him to take it with him - it could have been left in the cockpit. All I am suggesting is that if the 'reattachment' signal of the FO's phone is true, it might not be the result of an attempted call. I believe under the possible 'captain did it' scenario that the Captain might have turned on the FO's phone after either locking him out of the cockpit or dealing with him inside the cockpit - for whatever reason. It could have been to make it look as if the FO was alive by transmitting the phone signal or it could have been to check private info on the FO's phone - who knows. I am interested to learn about the accuracy of the reports about the FO's phone signal 'reattachment' because if such reports are just tabloid junk then it might not have happened at all. Thank you.
FLY DELTA JETS
 
bond007
Posts: 4428
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:11 pm

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 108):
Even if the cell phone signal was picked up, it does not necessarily mean that the FO attempted to make a call for help - we will never know the reason for the 'reattachment' if it actually did happen.

Correct, with what we know (which is very little), it's just as possible that it was Zaharie trying to call for help after the FO (or a pax for that matter) was trying to overpower him, and his phone was the one nearest/visible.


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:51 pm

This is still in reply to FlyDeltaJetsATL (reply 75/193) and 777Jet’s earlier comments (reply 75/189).
Sorry for not getting to this sooner but I was on the road for three days, delivering personal effects to Brisbane, to be shipped, as in sea freight, to Germany.

Before I start, let me say this, please:
Unless someone has information, that is otherwise not available to the public, it is not possible for anyone, myself on top of that list, to say with certainty what has happened to MH370 or what the events were that ultimately led to its demise; if that is what happened.
We can only guess, make an educated guess ...
And we can discuss these matters and we should do so, in all sincerity; I feel we should discuss what we believe might have happened and why we think so.

FlyDeltaJetsATL had this to say, and I quote:
I have followed your scenario, and that of all other members who post in this thread, for a long time and you seem to believe strongly that the data has been falsified / made up.
So what is your personal opinion on the data? You post as if you give the data a 90% or higher probability of being inaccurate / made up.
I personally believe that the data can be trusted and is not made up. So I would assign a probability of 100% to the data being accurate and a probability of 0% to the data being either wrong or intentionally wrong / made up.
Rather than just saying 'it's 50 / 50 because it is either one or the other and either one is possible', please tell me what probability you really give to the data being either right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate?
End of quote.

To be more precise with this, is a challenge; but I’ll try. It is a challenge because whatever we say in regard to MH370, it can only be that individual’s personal opinion.
So whatever follows from here on is simply my own opinion and/or my believe.

The 50 : 50 possibility, of the satellite data being false or not, cannot be expressed in any other way.
The data is either correct or it is not; there can be no ‘in-between’.
The challenge, then, is to express in percentage terms what might have happened overall.

There is a 50 % chance, or likelihood, call it what you will, that the satellite data was in no way tampered with. That means, the data was correct and could be trusted for those innovative calculations. As a result we know now that the aircraft ought to be somewhere in the SIO. The question then is, how did the aircraft get there or, more specifically, what was the most likely chain of events that caused this mysterious disappearance.
Whatever it is that made MH370 end up in the SIO, in this reckoning it can only be a share of 50% of the possibilities.

Because the other 50 % would come into the half where the satellite data is not correct. Under that possibility, the aircraft may still be in the SIO, for all we know, but it is far more likely that the aircraft was flown somewhere else. Again, any events that might have happened under the guise or cover of falsified satellite data, can only be shared under this 50%.

I have been asked to, so I will try my best in coming up with probability figures that I would assign.

This is the possibility that the satellite data is true and correct; i.e. that it was not tampered with.
In this half, the aircraft would have to be in the SIO.
35 % Fire or other technical failures, including the incapacitation of the crew.
This one item would probably incorporate most of the various theories that have been put forward here on A.net; some of those were very seriously and professionally discussed on these threads, and sincerely.
12 % Hijacking which ended in failure and the subsequent disappearance of the aircraft in the SIO.
2 % The Captain did it; this cannot, unfortunately, be discarded as a possibility.
1 % Some other reason that no one has yet thought of.
Total = 50 %

Here now the possibility that the satellite data was falsified, tampered with or somehow manipulated.
In this half, 9M-MRO would most likely have ended up not in the SIO but somewhere else instead.
And, indeed, it could be anywhere in the world as long as the aircraft had fuel; i.e. if it was refuelled somewhere.
And please note:
This is not an attempt to ascertain who it was that might have tampered with the satellite data.
Falsification of the satellite data is most likely possible in several ways, which might include changes to the logged data (computer entries) or the use of the aircraft equipment or the use of other external, highly advanced equipment.
My belief is also, that the aircraft was ‘NOT’ hijacked for use as an airborne weapon.
Furthermore, I reckon, 9M-MRO did fly along the Malacca Strait; but as soon as it was out of radar range, and the SatCom 'appeared' to come back on line, the aircraft would have deviated from the generally assumed flight path.
It quite possibly went either west or on a northerly track.
That leaves a rather few possibilities to make up this 50%; I’ll give it a try anyway.
1 % Some weird or wonderful event which no one has heretofore ever thought of or heard about.
1 % The plane may have been shot down, by accident or by design, and all the searches and governmental utterances are a coordinated farce.
8 % Hijacking by ordinary criminals
20 % Professional hijacking by what is generally considered and assumed as the Western Side.
20 % Professional hijacking by what is generally considered and assumed as the Eastern Side.
Total = 50 %

There is of course much more to it all and, I’m sure, as soon as new or more information comes to hand, the above percentages would certainly change.

Let me say one more thing:
I suppose what I’ve been getting at, and I’m surprised about the response, is that so many here on A.net are so ready to almost blindly accept the veracity of the satellite data.
For all we do and can know, the data may have been falsified in any one of many different ways; and this might have been with the knowledge of Inmarsat or they may have been totally oblivious to the fact, at least in the early stages.
Then again, too, I can see no way how we would ever get a real guarantee that the data is true and correct.
What’s that famous saying:
‘Trust me, I work for the government!’
 
Rara
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 2:42 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 110):
The 50 : 50 possibility, of the satellite data being false or not, cannot be expressed in any other way.

It could be expressed as 95 : 5?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 110):
20 % Professional hijacking by what is generally considered and assumed as the Western Side.
20 % Professional hijacking by what is generally considered and assumed as the Eastern Side.

That's 40% probability of a professional, politically-drived highjacking of a passenger plane? What makes you assign such high probabilities? While nothing is impossible, just look at the odds... this would have to be orchestrated by a number of actors across different countries, involving a massive number of people. It would require a conspiracy of mind-numbing proportions. Not to mention it would have to be executed flawlessly on the first try... really? By governments? Finally, there is no clear motive (why would anyone who is so enormously powerful and influential highjack a passenger plane?)

All in all, this is so unlikely that you can't simply assign a 40% likelyhood without further outlining of WHY exactly you would consider it so probable.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 110):
The 50 : 50 possibility, of the satellite data being false or not, cannot be expressed in any other way.

Just because there are exactly two possibilities does not imply that they are equally likely.

I believe it to be extremely unlikely that anyone altered the satellite data, because doing so is considerably more difficult than suppressing it entirely. Why go to great lengths to manufacture a false trail when it is so much easier to leave no trail at all, simply by turning off the Satcom and leaving it off, or causing the data to be deleted after the fact? (if one were smart enough to spoof the data, how would one plausibly make the stupid mistake of leaving the Satcom on?)

I am pleased that the discussion has been rid of so much venom. Perhaps thanks are due to the moderators.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:53 pm

Update to the Timeline:

11:56:08 As the engines were started, 9MMRO initiated an ACARS login.
0:26:21 MAS 370: MAS 370 we are ready requesting flight level three five zero to Beijing
0:27:27 ATC request for push back begins at 16:27:27.
0:28:00 MH370 left from gate C1 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
1:07:29 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
1:19:26 * 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)
1720:36 Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display the last secondary radar position symbol of MH370 was recorded at 1721:13
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.
1720:31 Radar recording showed that MH370 passed through waypoint IGARI
1:22 "aircaft suppose to pass IGARI at time two two" message was sent at 1950:16 based on the reconstruction of the flight on a simulator, the flight would be at IGARI one minute earlier than the original ETA of 1722
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 intermittent 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)
1:41:23 Lumpur Radar Malaysian Three Seven Zero Lumpur Radar how do you read, do you read?
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)
1:50:27 KLATCC Affirm.... and confirm still negative contact with Malaysian Three Seven Zero
2:03:34 KLATCC Ah okay okay okay carry on I tell Singa Ho Chi Minh la we told the airline to contact. (1803 to 1805Z) no response from MH370 to communications attempts by the satellite (ACARS related)
2:03 KLATCC told HCMATCC that MH-370 was in Cambodian airspace
between 17:21 and 18:22 (probably at about 18:00) the first officer’s mobile phone was registered on a cellular network
1804:39 KLATCC Okay reference to the... company Malaysian Airlines the aircraft is still flying is over somewhere over Cambodia.
1804:50 HCM ATCC Somewhere over Cambodia.
1804:51 KLATCC Affirm.
1804:52 HCMATCC That's mean not enter our FIR.
1835:43 MAS Operations Roughly aaa... somewhere Vietnam.
1835:46 KL ATCC Okay can you tell what is the last position aircraft passed now.
1835:52 MAS Operations Is the last position was eer...Lat Long fourteen fourteen point nine zero zero zero zero.
1836:06 KL ATCC Eer... say again please.
1836:07 MAS Operations Eer... Latitude is fourteen point nine eer....
1836:11 KL ATCC eeh eeh
1836:12 MAS Operations Zero zero zero zero
1836:15 KL ATCC Four, four time zero.
1836:16 MAS Operations Yeah.
1836:18 KL ATCC Okay.
1836:19 MAS Operations Longtitude is one zero niner.
1836:22 KL ATCC One zero nine.
1836:24 MAS Operations One five five zero zero.
1836:25 KL ATCC One five zero zero at what time please. (14°54'0.04"N 109° 9'0.07"E) 14.90000 n 109.1500 e
1836:28 MAS Operations At one eight three three five six.
1836:30 KL ATCC One eight three three huh.
1836:32 MAS Operations Auh.
1836:32 KL ATCC Okay this is the position aircraft passed by one eight three three uh.
1836:36 MAS Operations Huh
1836:37 KL ATCC Okay aah... this one let them call okay and daaadvise okay you try to raise the aircraft and then like aah... I mean to reply you whether they are eer... contact any of the ATC unit along unit or not.
1837:41 KL ATCC Okay aircraft is eer... still flying and then keep on sending position report to the company
1837:49 HCM ATCC Yeah
1837:49 KL ATCC Okay.
1837:50 HCM ATCC The aircraft is landing at (xxxx) [illegible]
1837:52 KL ATCC Say again.
1837:53 HCM ATCC Say again say again for Malaysian Three Seven Zero.
1837:56 KL ATCC Affirm Malaysian 370 still flying aircraft keep sending position report to the airline okay to the company okay it last at time 1833 at time 1833 aircraft passed position 14.90000.
1838:18 HCM ATCC Yes
2:15 MAS OPS stated that they were in communication with MH-370 and that it was in Cambodian airspace (extracted from the watch supervisor's logbook)
2:18 HCMATCC
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)
2:35:02 KLATCC MAS Operations Will try the SATCOM and see
2:35:14 KLATCC Okay and daa okay daa because da Ho Chi Minh still worry because they have completely no contact at all either radio or rada
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)
1949:02 HCM ATCC Until now nothing.
1949:04 KL ATCC Nothing so far because aircaft suppose to pass IGARI at time two two IGARI two two so far you negative contact at all with the aircraft. 3;50 -
1949:43 KL ATCC Suppose to pass IGARI one seven two two estimate IGARI one seven two two earlier
1950:16 HCM ATCC We just see him on the radar screen one time and after a few minutes later disappear
4:41 - (20:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
5:30 - KLATCC activated the Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre (ARCC) *** 4 hours and 9 minutes after it had disappeared from HCMATCC's screen.
5.41 - (21:41) Handshake Request, with response (INMARSAT ping)
0632 - (22:30) DETRESFA message declared *** "DETRESFA" is the code word used to designate an emergency phase wherein there is reasonable certainty that an aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and imminent danger or require immediate assistance.
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
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:01 pm

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
(approximatly) nine witness reports from around Kota Bharu, (The first, and most dependable, described the plane descending as fast.)

Please provide a source for this assertion?

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
between 17:21 and 18:22 (probably at about 18:00) the first officer’s mobile phone was registered on a cellular network

Please provide a source for this assertion?

(I ask, because these items were indeed mentioned in the self-amplifying echo chamber of the media frenzy following the disappearance, but they are not in the official interim report and should probably be strongly discounted unless properly sourced.)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:08 am

Tailskid,
If you claim your timeline as your theory, then, fine...
If you claim your timeline as fact then, Oh dear, more obfuscation and propaganda...
Anyways...

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
1:28 - Thai military radar tracked a plane flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kuala Lumpur. This track was intermittent but they did see the plane eventually turning right, (toward Butterworth)

Which part of the report says this?
The report stated it went right at IGARI towards BITOD but then turned left back towards Kota Bharu, then to Penang. Funny how you always mention Butterworth instead of Penang. Of all the people who discussed the flight paths, only you and WarrenPlatts keep saying Butterworth.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
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.)

Again, NOT in the report, and by those who counted the aircraft performance, and those who counted aircraft performance and calculate the final position.
To descend low, the aircraft would have to slow down, they would miss the rest of the time and positions stated in the report. Furthermore, they would lose an extra 3-4 tons of fuel when climbing if it went "very low"... they would then only end up on the 7th ring quite far northeast.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
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)

I guess you believe in your own truth outside the report. I guess you choose to ignore the part near Penang for this to suit your own truth and try to convince us that it's the truth.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
between 17:21 and 18:22 (probably at about 18:00) the first officer’s mobile phone was registered on a cellular network

Evidence? Not in the report.
If they have checked out everyone on board by a little bit of investigation, they would have been able to confirm this in with the cellular company. Evidence?

This is getting boring Tailskid. Why not try to contact the media and tell them your theory or your version of the facts.   I'd be happy to give you contacts for the guys covering MH370 in CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, CBC, AFP, AP, Reuters, Fairfax and Fox.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:28 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 110):
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 110):
The 50 : 50 possibility, of the satellite data being false or not, cannot be expressed in any other way.

It could be expressed as 95 : 5?

  

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 111):
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 110):
The 50 : 50 possibility, of the satellite data being false or not, cannot be expressed in any other way.

Just because there are exactly two possibilities does not imply that they are equally likely.

  

Exactly.

For somebody who sounds so convinced that the data is wrong or spoofed I find it hard to believe, that after such a long post in reply #109, that when asked 'what % is your personal opinion?' that again 50 : 50 was the answer given.

YoungMans, we know the data is either correct or false, but that does not mean that people believe to themselves that the odds are still 50 : 50 just because either could be possible. In my personal opinion, I believe there is a 99% chance that the data is correct. There we go. Whilst it either is or is not correct, I assign 99% to the data being correct - my personal opinion. Again, you sound sure that the data is wrong and has even been made up so I find your 50 : 50 odds hard to believe. I thought you, in your personal opinion, would assign higher than 50% to the data being false...??? Is 50 : 50 your real personal opinion???

Quoting tailskid (Reply 112):
between 17:21 and 18:22 (probably at about 18:00) the first officer’s mobile phone was registered on a cellular network

As mentioned by the member FlyDeltaJetsATL which I quote below, I too would like to know who / what was the most credible source that made this claim or verified this. My apologies if I forgot, but I have always found the so called cell phone signal to be an interesting and possible important bit of information (allthough like already mentioned we will probably never know the real reason for the signal or any possible attempted contact) but I can't recall if it was confirmed by any credible source, like the authorities.

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 107):
I would like to know more about the 'reattachment' of FO Fariq's cell phone to a cell phone tower in Malaysia.
Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 107):
has it been 100% verified by the cell phone company or authorities that there was indeed any signal picked up from the FO's phone or could this bit of information just be tabloid junk?

  

Unless confirmed by the authorities the entire cell phone signal saga could very well just be "tabloid junk"...

[Edited 2015-03-11 18:36:19]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 1:55 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 115):
what was the most credible source that made this claim or verified this.
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asi...mid-air-phone-call-report-20140412

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 115):
but I can't recall if it was confirmed by any credible source, like the authorities.

If your use of the term "like the authorities" means Hishammuddin or his PR staff I would see using the term "credible source" here as an oxymoron. In fact there really can be no "credible sources" in this case, all we have and all we can have, is this early report from the Straits Times. The Hishammuddin camp then obviously moved to shut down that leak of information. It would take no more than a phone call from Hishammuddin's staff to cause the cell tower operator to clam up.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:12 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 116):
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asi...mid-air-phone-call-report-20140412

From the article:

"""The New Straits Times (NST), quoting unnamed sources,"""

"""The newspaper was unable to ascertain who the co-pilot was trying to call as its sources chose not to divulge details of the investigation. The links that police are trying to establish are also unclear, said the report."""

""""The telco's (telecommunications company's) tower established the call that he was trying to make. On why the call was cut off, it was likely because the aircraft was fast moving away from the tower and had not come under the coverage of the next one," the sources said."""


All of this from a "unnamed source"? Unnamed sources that chose not to divulge further details? Hardly credible information. This entire piece of the puzzle could be made up and is hardly fact.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 116):
If your use of the term "like the authorities" means Hishammuddin or his PR staff I would see using the term "credible source" here as an oxymoron.

Hishamuddin and any authority in Malaysia is excluded from my list of authorities that I conisder credible sources.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:32 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 117):
Hishamuddin and any authority in Malaysia is excluded from my list of authorities that I conisder credible sources.

Does it then logically follow that you do not consider the official investigation's interim factual report a credible source?
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:47 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 117):
All of this from a "unnamed source"? Unnamed sources that chose not to divulge further details? Hardly credible information. This entire piece of the puzzle could be made up and is hardly fact.

You are taking this latest technique of our forum professional obfuscater a bit far.

This is the way journalism works, they cajole an employee of the cell phone company into providing probably visual access to company records. The Times can't reveal the guy's name or he'll get fired so they just say "unnamed source". This sort of thing has caused Justice Department subpenas and Supreme Court cases here in the US.

There is no reason for the Times to have made that story up.

The discussion in this forum would and should normally be conducted along the standards of any engineering investigation, this is not a murder trial defended by OJ's attorney staff, we are merely trying to ascertain what happened to MH370. I look at all the evidence in its aggregate. And I use the term "evidence" as an engineer would use it, not as an attorney would use it - with rules of - and past case law determinations of what is and what isn't.



For my part, there is nothing sacred about anything to do with any engineering investigation. If it was operator error that caused the crane to fall or the computer to crash, that's the way the report will read. In this case, if the fault was found with a wing, I would be OK with that, and I wouldn't care which wing it was. If it was a wing, then someone at Boeing would have their feelings hurt for sure, and there surely are two separate lines, one for left wings and one for right wings so different people's feelings might be hurt depending on which wing was blamed. If this it were found to have been caused by an engine, then someone at RR would feel he is being made a scapegoat for sure; if it were electronics others would object and I really don't care who objects. No engineer trying to figure out what caused any failure can take into account what are essentially political limitations. And the pilot is just another part of the plane to me.

[Edited 2015-03-11 19:49:41]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:26 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 118):
Does it then logically follow that you do not consider the official investigation's interim factual report a credible source?

I think in his eyes there is no credible source as long as it goes against his views... look, even unnamed sources that suits him gets argued that it's credibe.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
You are taking this latest technique of our forum professional obfuscater a bit far.

We are all learning from you my friend.   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
There is no reason for the Times to have made that story up.

They didn't make the story up, but as they attempt to make sure the story is always credible, when there's a media frenzy, the media are bound to make mistakes. Just look at "captain left his seat" at QZ8501... what a debacle of a media screw up due to "unnamed sources" that was...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:34 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
The discussion in this forum would and should normally be conducted along the standards of any engineering investigation

Do engineering investigations use Facebook as evidence?
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:19 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 110):
It could be expressed as 95 : 5?
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 111):
Just because there are exactly two possibilities does not imply that they are equally likely.
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 115):
I thought you, in your personal opinion, would assign higher than 50% to the data being false...??? Is 50 : 50 your real personal opinion???

No - 50:50 is not my opinion; that's just an indicator for either 'Yes' or 'No'; the data is correct or it is not.
And yes, I understand that whilst there are these two possibilities, it is the 'Likelihood' that is important.

When I was writing reply #109, I wasn't exactly happy with those percentage numbers myself. Believe it or not, even I wouldn't consider the likelihood as high a s 40%, and yet, I reckon, it would be considerably more than just 5% and definitely more than the 1% 777Jet thinks is possible.

Before I go any further, though, I need to clarify something ...
Spoofing the satellite data, if that is what happened, was not an end in itself; far from it.
If it did happen, it was for a purpose; and that purpose was to provide a cover or a guise for something else, the real issue of it, i.e. a cover for a foul play operation of the worst kind.
So your question should not be how likely is it that the data was spoofed or not; instead your question should be whether there could have been possibilities (rogue operations of some kind) that made the spoofing desirable, if not essential.

With that in mind it is still 50:50 whether the satellite data was spoofed or not.
However, if it did happen, it would have been for (and by) agencies who are more than sufficiently equipped and skilled.
An agency or similar who had a motive or strict orders to carry out such an operation.
What is the likelihood of that? That is the question ....

I rate the likelihood for what I just described considerably higher than the 'Captain-did-it' theory; which is at best 2%, in my humble opinion.
Many descriptions in the earlier threads of technical failures and chains of events, that could end up with serious consequences, seemed to make a lot of sense, to me anyway; and it is something I would consider considerably more likely than a professional hijacking.
On the other hand, a professional hijacking would be far more likely than (for wont of a better description) a simple hijacking, either to steal the plane, for use as an airborne weapon or any such lesser kind of reasons.

So without too much waffling, you've got me in a spot, you want to know the numbers.
Well, here goes:
20 % - Professional hijacking. This would involve spoofing the satellite data as a cover for that type of operation.
35 % - Fire or other technical chains of events; which also resulted in crew incapacitation.
15 % - Simple hijacking that ended in failure and tragic consequences. (No satellite spoofing)
2 % - The Captain did it.
10 % - Unknown, weird or totally unexpected causes. This could possibly involve satellite spoofing.

This is, of course, not 100%; the truth is, I myself couldn't think of anything else.
However, those percentages are how likely I rate the possibilities of what might have happened.
And, as always, if we get more or new information, that may well change.

But let me ask again ...
Why is the satellite data such a holy grail, that it must not be questioned here on A.net?
Is it really so inconceivable that 9M-MRO was abducted for reasons of which we have absolutely no idea and by agencies that most people have never heard of.
And don't ask me, I haven't heard of them either..!!
But.., judging by precedents and things that go on around us, I would think something like that is quite plausible.

To finish off, let me briefly explain why I did question the correctness of the satellite data.
And please understand:
Whilst I have these questions, I have no way of knowing whether the data is correct or not.
Come to think of it; most people here on A.net won't know for sure either. They can only 'believe' the data is correct.

It has died down now but people from the general public used to talk a lot about MH370.
Many people were and probably still are of the opinion that MH370 did not end up in the SIO, just like that.
So I thought about this, how can one get the public to believe that the aircraft is in the SIO when in fact it might have ended up somewhere else; i.e. how can one cover up a false-flag operation.
So I came up with some ideas and posted relevant questions and comments here on A.net. Some of the replies really surprised me and made me think that with some contributors I was touching on a raw nerve.
Why would that be?

And one last question for Rara, reply 110:
On what grounds can you make that ratio 95:5 ...??
Or 777Jet's 1% ..??
 
exfss
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:54 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:35 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 110):
this would have to be orchestrated by a number of actors across different countries, involving a massive number of people. It would require a conspiracy of mind-numbing proportions. Not to mention it would have to be executed flawlessly on the first try... really?

You could have written here ,the same thing, the 08-11-2001.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
But let me ask again ...
Why is the satellite data such a holy grail, that it must not be questioned here on A.net?
Is it really so inconceivable that 9M-MRO was abducted for reasons of which we have absolutely no idea and by agencies that most people have never heard of.

Interesting question.
It could lead also to think that these handskaked were the little sand in the gear that went wrong so they had to spoof the data.
But I doubt about it.
But I like the idea of having no restrictions as for the questions...


I go with my numbers:
40% it was a fire with extensive poisounous smoke.
40 % it was a very well planned hijack but someone had forgot about the hanshake.
20 % others.(rogue pilot , passenger hijack that went bad for all, or slow oxygene problem(since the beginning of the flight, and others.
Where is it?
50% underwater, 50% landed safely somewhere.
No question is stupid.Only answers can be.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
Spoofing the satellite data, if that is what happened, was not an end in itself; far from it.
If it did happen, it was for a purpose

Please, this makes no sense!

Why would you spoof something when you can far more easily make it disappear entirely? Why is leaving a misleading trail better than leaving no trail at all? This is the fatal flaw in your satellite spoofing theory... someone motivated to take the plane to a secret location would obviously prefer to turn off the tracking entirely, and anyone with enough knowledge and skill to spoof the data would not make the stupid mistake of leaving a trail of satcom handshakes.

It's like a burglar wearing fluorescent orange clothing during his getaway, going to great lengths and technical means to make his clothing appear fluorescent green rather than fluorescent orange in order to mislead the police. Why didn't he just wear black so as not to be seen by the police in the first place?
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 124):
Why would you spoof something when you can far more easily make it disappear entirely? Why is leaving a misleading trail better than leaving no trail at all? This is the fatal flaw in your satellite spoofing theory... someone motivated to take the plane to a secret location would obviously prefer to turn off the tracking entirely, and anyone with enough knowledge and skill to spoof the data would not make the stupid mistake of leaving a trail of satcom handshakes.

Maybe to lead the investigators on a wild goose chase, forcing them to waste time and resources. At this stage most people have forgotten about this disappearance or don't care anymore unfortunately. This makes it easier for the investigation to be wrapped up and declared unsolved as most people wouldn't blame them anymore. Also it could be a way to buy extra time, since the investigators have gone with this data, they aren't focusing on other possibilities.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 124):
It's like a burglar wearing fluorescent orange clothing during his getaway, going to great lengths and technical means to make his clothing appear fluorescent green rather than fluorescent orange in order to mislead the police. Why didn't he just wear black so as not to be seen by the police in the first place?

I think its more like a burglar setting out footprints in a different direction to which he went or making the scene look like a set up, fake fingerprints etc.

Btw I don't personally believe this, just pointing out possibilities.
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:21 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 117):
Quoting tailskid (Reply 116):
If your use of the term "like the authorities" means Hishammuddin or his PR staff I would see using the term "credible source" here as an oxymoron.

Hishamuddin and any authority in Malaysia is excluded from my list of authorities that I conisder credible sources.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify  
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 118):
Does it then logically follow that you do not consider the official investigation's interim factual report a credible source?

My bad - there was meant to be sarcasm underpinning the "Thank you for allowing me to clarify" part of my reply # 117 but I must admit that I poorly worded the entire reply and that combined with using the wrong 'Smile' at the end makes the reply seem serious - not sarcastic like I was intending.      

The 'Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370' from the Malaysian Ministry of Transport is probably as credible a source as one can expect to find in Malaysia IMHO  

However, if it was not for the ICAO 1 year requirement I believe it is very likely that this report might not yet be public   

Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
You are taking this latest technique of our forum professional obfuscater a bit far.

I guess I am still not at your level yet  

I might just let you have the role of "our forum professional obfuscater" all to yourself  
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 120):
Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
You are taking this latest technique of our forum professional obfuscater a bit far.

We are all learning from you my friend.  

  

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 121):
Quoting tailskid (Reply 119):
The discussion in this forum would and should normally be conducted along the standards of any engineering investigation

Do engineering investigations use Facebook as evidence?

Apparently they do in tailskid's world  
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
No - 50:50 is not my opinion; that's just an indicator for either 'Yes' or 'No'; the data is correct or it is not.
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
Believe it or not, even I wouldn't consider the likelihood as high a s 40%, and yet, I reckon, it would be considerably more than just 5% and definitely more than the 1% 777Jet thinks is possible.
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
So without too much waffling, you've got me in a spot, you want to know the numbers.
Well, here goes:
20 % - Professional hijacking. This would involve spoofing the satellite data as a cover for that type of operation.
35 % - Fire or other technical chains of events; which also resulted in crew incapacitation.
15 % - Simple hijacking that ended in failure and tragic consequences. (No satellite spoofing)
2 % - The Captain did it.
10 % - Unknown, weird or totally unexpected causes. This could possibly involve satellite spoofing.

Thank you for giving your personal opinion - that you give 20% to "Professional hijacking. This would involve spoofing the satellite data as a cover for that type of operation."

Any scenario that involves data spoofing is still in the 1% area IMHO  
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
And one last question for Rara, reply 110:
On what grounds can you make that ratio 95:5 ...??
Or 777Jet's 1% ..??

My 1% is simple - I personally believe that whilst it is possible, it is very, very, very, very unlikely that intentional data spoofing occurred in the case of MH370. That is just my opinion, as 20% is your opinion. Given that I acknowledge that it is *possible* and the plane has not yet been found so I can't rule that scenario off of my list of possible scenarios, but I also believe that it was very, very, very, very unlikely that data spoofing occurred, I feel that 1% is the appropriate number / odds to assign to data spoofing  

Thank you again for sharing with us your odds, sir  
Quoting exfss (Reply 123):
I go with my numbers:
40% it was a fire with extensive poisounous smoke.
40 % it was a very well planned hijack but someone had forgot about the hanshake.
20 % others.(rogue pilot , passenger hijack that went bad for all, or slow oxygene problem(since the beginning of the flight, and others.
Where is it?
50% underwater, 50% landed safely somewhere.

And thank you for also sharing with us your odds, sir  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:23 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 126):
I might just let you have the role of "our forum professional obfuscater" all to yourself

Obfuscate is not just a generalized derogatory word with no particular meaning.
Merriam Webster defines obfuscate as: to make (something) more difficult to understand
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate

That has been the tactic of "the Captain wouldn't have done it" crowd from back to the time of Pihero last March.
Their techniques have been: speaking in vague generalities, near constant expression of uncertainty. excruciating questioning of even peripheral issues. rejection of already discussed and agreed upon issues, wholesale rejection of sources, intentional failure to understand what has been said to them, bickering and frequent changing of the subject from what is being discussed usually to a personal attack.

I have been specific in the presentation of my ideas - I have offered specific a detailed timeline, with updates as new information has become available. I have offered a KML file with specific and detailed route projections and times projected. I have offered clearly worded specific points in my arguments such as in posts # 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 41, 73, 84, 112 directly above.

The obfuscation is all in Hishammuddin and Mandala's camps.

And while on this subject, I still can't understand what your position is or what you were saying here:
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 126):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 117):
Quoting tailskid (Reply 116):
If your use of the term "like the authorities" means Hishammuddin or his PR staff I would see using the term "credible source" here as an oxymoron.

Hishamuddin and any authority in Malaysia is excluded from my list of authorities that I conisder credible sources.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 118):
Does it then logically follow that you do not consider the official investigation's interim factual report a credible source?

My bad - there was meant to be sarcasm underpinning the "Thank you for allowing me to clarify" part of my reply # 117 but I must admit that I poorly worded the entire reply and that combined with using the wrong 'Smile' at the end makes the reply seem serious - not sarcastic like I was intending.

The 'Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370' from the Malaysian Ministry of Transport is probably as credible a source as one can expect to find in Malaysia IMHO

However, if it was not for the ICAO 1 year requirement I believe it is very likely that this report might not yet be public

Would you be willing to say what you were trying to say there in clear English without any sarcasim or wit?
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:48 am



Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
20 % - Professional hijacking. This would involve spoofing the satellite data as a cover for that type of operation.
35 % - Fire or other technical chains of events; which also resulted in crew incapacitation.
15 % - Simple hijacking that ended in failure and tragic consequences. (No satellite spoofing)
2 % - The Captain did it.
10 % - Unknown, weird or totally unexpected causes. This could possibly involve satellite spoofing.

Oh you're too cruel on "the captain did it" crowd.

My take on the chances...
50% unforeseen chain of events arising from technical issues leading to crew incapacity!
29% bungled hijacking!
19% the captain did it!
1% successful takeover and spoofed the whole world!
1% other options unrelated to any of the above (includes taken by aliens, among countless others)

[Edited 2015-03-12 19:01:28]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:02 am

The interim report has significantly changed my odds:
35% crew oxygen bottle explosion
25% combustive event
10% other technical fault
15% failed hijack
10% captain did it
5% other
 
User avatar
777Jet
Topic Author
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:06 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 122):
So without too much waffling, you've got me in a spot, you want to know the numbers.
Well, here goes:
20 % - Professional hijacking. This would involve spoofing the satellite data as a cover for that type of operation.
35 % - Fire or other technical chains of events; which also resulted in crew incapacitation.
15 % - Simple hijacking that ended in failure and tragic consequences. (No satellite spoofing)
2 % - The Captain did it.
10 % - Unknown, weird or totally unexpected causes. This could possibly involve satellite spoofing.
Quoting exfss (Reply 123):
I go with my numbers:
40% it was a fire with extensive poisounous smoke.
40 % it was a very well planned hijack but someone had forgot about the hanshake.
20 % others.(rogue pilot , passenger hijack that went bad for all, or slow oxygene problem(since the beginning of the flight, and others.
Where is it?
50% underwater, 50% landed safely somewhere.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 130):
My take on the chances...
50% unforeseen chain of events arising from technical issues leading to crew incapacity!
29% bungled hijacking!
19% the captain did it!
1% successful takeover and spoofed the whole world!
1% other options unrelated to any of the above (includes taken by aliens, among countless others)

My Odds:

85% Captain did it.
8% Failed hi-jack attempt.
5% Unforeseen chain of events arising from technical issues leading to crew incapacity. -(to use Mandala's wording)-
1% Data spoofed & plane taken by 'bad guys' including the possibility that MH370 & MH17 share motive.
0.5% Plane landed at Diego Garcia, valuable contents offloaded & then flown remotely to SIO.
0.5% Something else.

What I rule out:

1) It did not explode like TWA800 or Pan Am 103.
2) It was not taken by aliens or UFOs.
3) It did not crash 'then and there' near IGARI. -(sorry NAV30)-

That's all for now... Work is calling...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:19 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 131):
LOL

The mods here have 'odd' agendas.

Whatever disagreements we MAY have, I appreciate your honesty...it is quite the uphill battle when you get percentages like 2% (youngmans) and 10% (wingedmigrator LMAO), demonstrating either___________or something quite more dishonest.

But what I would again implore honest posters here to ask, is how Mr. Mandala 1 year later had his memory 'jogged' as to BFO spoofing, despite ongoing spoofing discussions for the past 11 months. Yet no one here dares challenge this incredible happenstance.

[Edited 2015-03-12 21:20:17]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:53 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 132):
The mods here have 'odd' agendas.

The mods agenda is simply, keeping the peace in this place.
Sometimes it goes against what you want... sometimes it goes against what I want...
C'est la vie.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 132):
But what I would again implore honest posters here to ask, is how Mr. Mandala 1 year later had his memory 'jogged' as to BFO spoofing, despite ongoing spoofing discussions for the past 11 months. Yet no one here dares challenge this incredible happenstance.

Not BFO per se, but the "residual error" due to the orbital wobble (and orbit station keeping economics), by screwing with the Doppler. Why no one challenges it? Simple, because they know the message (which is the physical security of the satcom equipment, instead of the spoofing itself) and that I am not advocating MH370 went elsewhere because the transmitting frequency correction was spoofed. Whether it was spoofed or not, whether I remembered it or not or kept it hidden, or made the whole thing up as you claim, doesn't matter, I still think it went down in SIO. (But I guess you're going to say that's not the point you're raising and that you'd adamant that I am a liar/crook/con/spoofer/paid_agent/etc).

Besides, what's the relevance of it to the discussion here? I didn't raise it here.

[Edited 2015-03-12 22:54:31]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:28 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 130):
The interim report has significantly changed my odds:

Mine too. The information in the report paints a more complex picture. And I've never been comfortable with how the turn-on-the-communications has fit *any* theory. Still troubled.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 130):
35% crew oxygen bottle explosion
25% combustive event
10% other technical fault
15% failed hijack
10% captain did it
5% other

Close to mine, but I'd just list these five options and we really have no understanding of the likelihoods at this time. No data. But it is definitely beyond just "captain did ti".

On another note, what odds do we give for the cause behind some poster's behaviour on this series of threads? It could be motivated by just being very confused and excited, but could also be intentional trolling, or perhaps even professional trolling for an unknown cause. I'm more in the latter camps, personally, and have decided to not respond ever. Let us all do that.
 
Unflug
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:47 am

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 58):
Seriously, I believe this site needs a stricter moderation policy. One member has chosen to hijack the entire series of threads for his own purpose, with arguments that do not hold logic, and we are letting him. Why? And now, for once, we have reasonable things to discuss. The report is very interesting. Still only one third through it myself. Why do not we discuss the report, rather than try to argue with a troll?
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 64):
It's not because anyone is "losing an argument" - what's to lose? It's because it just gets nauseating. It isn't just this thread. Some posters seem to make a career out of hijacking one topic and repeating their points ad nauseum. I doubt anyone really wants that kind of censorship on this forum. We just want some people to shut up for awhile so that we can see what direction the topic can go without having to argue over every point.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 72):
Please, everyone, let's agree to ignore him. Otherwise, we're all participating in the lynching.

70 posts later: this doesn't not seem to work. Discussion ruled by someone living in his own world, bringing nothing of substance to the discussion, insulting other people while feeling insulted himself...

Sad.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:47 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 129):
The interim report has significantly changed my odds:

Likewise ....

20% - cascading technical issues
50% - cascading technical issues coupled with crew incapacitation
15% - "failed" hijacking
15% - deliberate (at least initially) act by captain or FO
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:51 am

There is a saying:
The best way to hide something is in plane .., sorry, in plain sight!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 124):
Why would you spoof something when you can far more easily make it disappear entirely? Why is leaving a misleading trail better than leaving no trail at all?

'No Trail' would be far more suspicious than a false(-flag) one.
Leaving a misleading trail is probably better because it might guide the investigators onto a wrong track.
It would take time for the investigators to cotton onto the fact that they have been misled; if that is what actually happened.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 124):
.... anyone with enough knowledge and skill to spoof the data would not make the stupid mistake of leaving a trail of satcom handshakes.

Anyone with the skill, knowledge and, might I add, the ruthlessness to pull something off of this nature, would not make stupid mistakes - full stop; we can be pretty certain on that.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 124):
It's like a burglar wearing fluorescent orange clothing during his getaway, going to great lengths and technical means to make his clothing appear fluorescent green rather than fluorescent orange in order to mislead the police. Why didn't he just wear black so as not to be seen by the police in the first place?

Whilst this is a bit over-simplified, it is still a good analogy.
Instead of wearing bright safety colours, the burglar would most certainly not be alone; all of them would be wearing the correct police uniforms for the country and/or area. As soon as the real police arrives, it would be the burglars taking charge, in the first few minutes or hours, directing the first on-scene response - completely misleading the efforts of the real police.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 125):
Maybe to lead the investigators on a wild goose chase, forcing them to waste time and resources. At this stage most people have forgotten about this disappearance or don't care anymore unfortunately. This makes it easier for the investigation to be wrapped up and declared unsolved as most people wouldn't blame them anymore. Also it could be a way to buy extra time, since the investigators have gone with this data, they aren't focusing on other possibilities.

Exactly ..!!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 128):
Oh you're too cruel on "the captain did it" crowd.

It might appear that way but I'm not; although, you are probably right that at least one or two will see it that way.
But that percentage, give or take a percent, is really what I believe. On what I have seen and read for myself, what others have said and judging by the general calibre and professional integrity of airline pilots, I would find it very hard to believe that it was the Captain.
What more, it's too much dwelled on by the main-stream media, too much hinting into this direction, here on A.net and elsewhere. Just these two facts alone tend me to believe that it increases the percentage of what I hold possible.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 131):
What I rule out:
1) It did not explode like TWA800 or Pan Am 103.
2) It was not taken by aliens or UFOs.
3) It did not crash 'then and there' near IGARI. -(sorry NAV30)-

Unlike you, I would never say that the aircraft was not taken by a UFO; because, without actual facts I couldn't.
For starters, the very term implies that we would be dealing with an 'UNIDENTIFIED' flying object.
It does not automatically mean extra terrestrial, or terrestrial but crewed by some unknown entities.
Is it likely? probably not! Is it highly unlikely? I'm pretty sure it would be - but not impossible.
Also, our militaries could and might be up to all sorts of shinanigans and we, the public, wouldn't have the faintest idea.
So, in that sense, and as I have mentioned it already, there is even a possibility, however remote, that the aircraft may have been shot down.

Cheers, YoungMans.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 129):
The interim report has significantly changed my odds
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 133):
Mine too.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 135):
Likewise ....

Out of interest, what in particular?
Down with that sort of thing!
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting baconbutty (Reply 137):

- Mode S transponder signal was lost 37 seconds before the last secondary signal. If you want to go "dark", I can see no reason to select a mode other than STBY for 37 seconds.

- An initial 700 ft gain in altitude between 1721:13 and 1730:35, and then a loss between 1730:35 and 1739:59, with altitude varying between 31,100 and 33,000 ft, suggesting that there may have been some difficulty, for whatever reason, in maintaining a constant altitude.

- Relatively stable groundspeed on primary radar. There was no low altitude, high-speed radar-avoiding dash across the Malay peninsula. Nor was there any evidence of aerobatic climbs and descents, as some have suggested. Such scenarios have often been offered as evidence that the captain must have done it.

- Quoting the report:

"The Captain’s ability to handle stress at work and home was good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his life style, interpersonal conflict or family stresses."

"There were no behavioural signs of social isolation, change in habits or interest, self-neglect, drug or alcohol abuse of the Captain, First Officer and the Cabin Crew."
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:01 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 138):
Mode S transponder signal was lost 37 seconds before the last secondary signal. If you want to go "dark", I can see no reason to select a mode other than STBY for 37 seconds.

According to the Factual Information (p. 6) we know that the transponder signal is consistent with switching to ALT RPTG OFF at 17:20:36 UTC and then to STBY at 17:21:13 UTC. Has anyone come up with a failure mode (instead of deliberate action) that could explain the loss of Mode S transponder signal for 37 seconds?
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:02 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 138):

Thanks very much, appreciated.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 139):
Has anyone come up with a failure mode (instead of deliberate action) that could explain the loss of Mode S transponder signal for 37 seconds?

Loss of ALT data input.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:26 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 141):
Loss of ALT data input.

As mode S reports selected altitude, could you be a little bit more specific how loss of ALT data input switches the transponder out of mode S to mode A?

[Edited 2015-03-13 06:33:19]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:33 pm

It wouldn't switch it, but there'd be no ALT data to report.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 143):
It wouldn't switch it, but there'd be no ALT data to report.

As I understand it, according to the Factual Information, it was Mode S signal that was lost (and replaced by Mode A signal for 37 seconds), not just the altitude information.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:05 pm

Without ALT data, it would like ALT RPTG OFF to ATC.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:24 pm

Quote:
The Left ATC/Mode S transponder gets 115V AC power from the AC Standby bus. The Right ATC/Mode S transponder gets 115V AC power from the Right AC Transfer bus. The dual transponder panel gets 115V AC power from the AC Standby bus. ATC/Mode S transponder power system is shown in Figure 1.9B below.

This system can be deactivated (turned OFF) by pulling the circuit breakers located at the P11 overhead circuit breaker panel or by selecting Transponder Mode Selector (Transponder Panel) to “STBY” position.

The transponder on the occurrence flight was operating satisfactorily up to the time it was lost on the ATC radar screen at 1721.13 UTC, 07 March 2014 [0121:13 MYT, 08 March 2014]. There was no message received from the aircraft to report a system failure.


Factual Information. Chapter 1.9.3 Air Traffic Control (ATC)/Mode S Transponder System, p. 40

It is clear that the transponder could have been switched to STBY by deliberate action. "Operating satisfactorily" is a bit vague given the 37 seconds without Mode S symbol if assuming the reason for dropping mode S being loss of ALT information, especially as there was no message of a system failure.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 2:36 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 146):

I don't disagree. I was just trying to come up with a non-intentional scenario. Loss of alt data would however square with the altitude variations that followed.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:39 pm

I would go as far as to say that "the transponder on the occurrence flight was operating satisfactorily up to the time it was lost on the ATC radar screen at 1721.13 UTC" is not compatible with the transponder losing ALT data input 37 seconds earlier.
 
tailskid
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 7:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK Part 76

Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:17 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 148):
I would go as far as to say that "the transponder on the occurrence flight was operating satisfactorily up to the time it was lost on the ATC radar screen at 1721.13 UTC" is not compatible with the transponder losing ALT data input 37 seconds earlier.

But it is, if it was put in standby 37 seconds earlier. We can't assume that what happened to MH370 was caused by a dozen little faults.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos