YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:16 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 147):

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 145):
One thing the paper does not do, unfortunately, is provide us with guarantees for the following ....

What do you mean by "guarantees" ?

Good question ....
I would think a statement, almost like an oath, which spells out that it is a guarantee.
Some statement of that nature should have been included in that paper, I reckon.

It's past midnight here in Australia and I have to call it quits for tonight.
Cheers,
YoungMans.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:26 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 148):
An error or problem could result in that, depends on the faults and/or failures causing it, which could result in other problems.
So now, how could the pilot the go onto mode A (and C) without Mode S on the transponder whose manuals state it couldn't be selected to operate mode A (and/or C) without Mode S?

The transponder was "operating satisfactorily" until the plane symbol dropped off the radars completely according to the Factual Information. As I see it, that excludes transponder malfunction,

Only logical explanation that I can think of is that the some ATC radar displays drop off Mode S symbol when altitude information is not available although the transponder still replies to Mode S interrogations.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:46 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 151):

I think it's possible they actually mean that the transponder was operating satisfactorily until those 37 seconds, i.e. there were no prior indications of an anomaly.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 152):
I think it's possible they actually mean that the transponder was operating satisfactorily until those 37 seconds, i.e. there were no prior indications of an anomaly.

Not according to the Factual Information.

Page 2

Quote:
The Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display at 1720:36 UTC [0120:36 MYT], and the last secondary radar position symbol of MH370 was recorded at 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT].

Page 38

Quote:
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.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:34 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 153):
Not according to the Factual Information.

The way I see it is that both pages 2 and 38 are correct.
If Mode S is not mandatory in the airspace it operated in at the time, then loss of mode S shall remain as "operating satisfactorily", as modes A and C were still operating.
If mode C was lost, then they would not write that the transponder was working satisfactorily because mode C is compulsory for IFR flight in Malaysia.
Loss of altitude data for a transponder operating in mode S will not cause a loss of mode S availability symbol in the ATC screens, it will show "NO ALT" or something else that'll indicate loss of mode C, and that'll prompt ATC to ask if your mode C is working or not... happened to me before.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 154):
The way I see it is that both pages 2 and 38 are correct.

Yes, we agree here. The question we don't have a definitive answer is what caused Mode S symbol of the plane drop off 37 seconds before the plane was dropped off completely.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 155):
The question we don't have a definitive answer is what caused Mode S symbol of the plane drop off 37 seconds before the plane was dropped off completely

Been running through the manuals and can't find enough info on the possible causes yet.
I need to read this up but loss of FMC POS (which means loss of GPS and IRU POS) would result in loss of mode S as the mode S cannot send back the lateral position (but Mode A can still do this). Loss of the interface with the FMC and/or the autopilot mode control panel would result in loss of aspects of the mode S but shouldn't be the loss of the whole mode S.... aaargh, still gotto read this stuff again and again and again.... *rant*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:08 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 148):
Whilst I think the doppler correction spoofing (not BFO spoofing by the way) it is not relevant to the serious discussions on what happened to MH370, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I simply forgot and failed to make the connection until recently. That simple.  

Okay. Sounds like an iron clad reason. Memory is a fickle little bugger.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 148):
If you think I take that doppler spoofing theory as serious then you got a problem, and if you don't think I take that theory seriously, why does that irk you so much that you and your mate has to ask this again and again?

I don't think you take it at all seriously. But you did give credence to the idea both on your blog and on Jeff W's, whilst also contributing to his New York magazine article. You do realize that many MH370 families are trying desperately to understand what has happened to their loved ones? and that putting rubbish like Russian spoofing into the public domain (especially by the likes of yourself) causes them even further confusion and pain.

And to do it in defense of Zaharie...wow.

[Edited 2015-04-02 09:08:43]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:12 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 155):
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):

I've been researching this since I first raised it - still no further ahead   
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:16 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 157):
But you did give credence to the idea both on your blog and on Jeff W's, whilst also contributing to his New York magazine article.

Yes, so?

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 157):
You do realize that many MH370 families are trying desperately to understand what has happened to their loved ones? and that putting rubbish like Russian spoofing into the public domain (especially by the likes of yourself) causes them even further confusion and pain.

And to do it in defense of Zaharie...wow.

You do realize that Zaharie's family is also trying desperately to understand what has happened to their loved one? And throwing accusations that the captain did it into the public domain causes them even further sadness and pain, especially when there is no absolute proof. (And then for our friend to say it is beyond doubt too!)

We're both guilty.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:32 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 143):
Also, the KUL-MEL flight has 3 pilots, so Z would have had an additional pilot onboard to deal with.

If that's true, it's a good point, I wasn't aware of that. The other reasons are garbage though  

Still doesn't address the big question:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 137):
I would also like to see those who are so adamant that Zaharie was responsible talk in more concrete terms about what his goal might have been, and how his actions might have achieved them

People talk as if making a plane disappear mysteriously is an obvious way to express disillusionment with a political system. I might be being thick, wouldn't be there first time, but I just don't get it.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:51 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 156):
Been running through the manuals and can't find enough info on the possible causes yet.
I need to read this up but loss of FMC POS (which means loss of GPS and IRU POS) would result in loss of mode S as the mode S cannot send back the lateral position (but Mode A can still do this). Loss of the interface with the FMC and/or the autopilot mode control panel would result in loss of aspects of the mode S but shouldn't be the loss of the whole mode S.... aaargh, still gotto read this stuff again and again and again.... *rant*

If the disappearance was intentional that leads to the idea that the perpetrator was pulling the circuit breakers on the overhead circuit panel instead of operating the transponder switch. Maybe pulling circuit breakers related to certain flight computers will cause the transponder to lose Mode S.

Quote:
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.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1707
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:26 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 161):
If the disappearance was intentional that leads to the idea that the perpetrator was pulling the circuit breakers on the overhead circuit panel instead of operating the transponder switch. Maybe pulling circuit breakers related to certain flight computers will cause the transponder to lose Mode S.

Interesting. First time I hear a plausible theory about this. Thank you.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:31 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 145):
One thing the paper does not do, unfortunately, is provide us with guarantees
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 145):
It would be interesting to know whether such guarantees ought to have been given in a paper of this importance.
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 145):
However, in the absence of guarantees, it does not automatically follow that the paper 'confirms' airborne time.
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 150):
I would think a statement, almost like an oath, which spells out that it is a guarantee.

This is starting to get silly...

Even if the paper came with some kind of written 'guarantee' it still does not 'confirm' anything.

And, most 'oaths' nowadays include words such as 'I believe' followed by 'to the best of my knowledge' - I believe that still would not be good enough for you to accept. Oaths don't usually say things to the effect of 'I guarantee that the above is absolutely 100% true and correct' - which seems to be what you are after. Also, how many people have lied under oath anyway? Think about it, such a guarantee would not change the value / truthfulness of the content of the paper one bit.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 160):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 143):
Also, the KUL-MEL flight has 3 pilots, so Z would have had an additional pilot onboard to deal with.

If that's true, it's a good point, I wasn't aware of that. The other reasons are garbage though

That's for you to decide  
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
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:56 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 150):
Good question ....
I would think a statement, almost like an oath, which spells out that it is a guarantee.
Some statement of that nature should have been included in that paper, I reckon.

In my job a guarantuee is a letter by a major bank that they will pay out a specified amount of money. This is to ensure my contractor performs according to contract. Of course, this is a ridiculous idea versus the general public - therefore I asked.

Regarding a pure statement, the signature of relevant people under the paper should be enough. Even a specially expressed oath will not have any legal consequences. And the signatures are enough to put Inmarsat's reputation at stake.

Btw, afaik they mentioned that they published all the data lines for MH370, but not all cells of each record. At the time, Mandala499 gave hints that some cells contain propriety information. But iirc the complete data was revealed at least to British Authorities.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:54 am

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 162):
Interesting. First time I hear a plausible theory about this. Thank you.

Looking at Factual Information Figure 1.9B - ATC/Mode S Transponder Power System on page 41, transponders get flight parameters from ADIRU GP BUS 3 installed in the Left AIMS Cabinet and SAARU GP BUS 3 installed in the Right AIMS Cabinet.

There are four circuit breakers for each AIMS Cabinet on the overhead panel. What if those CBs are pulled, or at least the CBs that provide current for ADIRU and SAARU respectively? If all the CBs pulled we apparently lose the following:
- Thrust controls
- Flight management functions
- Communications
- Primary Flight Displays
- Flight Data Recorder System
- Aircraft Conditioning System
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:45 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 164):

In my job, a guarantee is (or used to be) a document where a car manufacturer guarantees his product; these days it's called warranty.
The Australian Oxford dictionary defines the word thus:
guarantee / 1 a formal promise or assurance, esp. that something is of a specified quality and durability. b document giving such an undertaking.
It then goes on about law stuff, where the word is spelled differently.

In hindsight ...
I should never have mentioned the word ‘oath’ or ‘oath like’. It completely is the wrong application here.
Rather than using the word ‘guarantee’ it also would have been better to call it a ‘clear and concise assurance’; something to that effect anyway.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 164):
Regarding a pure statement, the signature of relevant people under the paper should be enough.

It probably is not.
Yes, by having put their names to that paper, they own up to the work they’ve done. And incredible work, too, it is.
But.., they have not put their names to what the paper does not say or give, i.e. an unreserved assurance.
This may seem like a play on words but, ultimately, there is a big and distinct difference.
(In today’s world, deception is not by way of what we are told; often it’s what we are not told that is the deception.)

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 164):
Btw, afaik they mentioned that they published all the data lines for MH370, but not all cells of each record. At the time, Mandala499 gave hints that some cells contain propriety information. But iirc the complete data was revealed at least to British Authorities.

I’m not fully aware of this; I've missed that at the time.
Then again ....
If there was proprietary information contained in the data, the reader of the paper should have been made aware of that. Likewise, if the full set of data was released to the British, that, too, should have been mentioned clearly and unambiguously.

We are not talking about writing as we do it here on A.net with our replies; which sometimes, unfortunately, is just waffling on, or whatever your preferred expression is for bullshit.
The paper we are discussing is endorsed or at least associated with the ...
THE JOURNAL OF NAVIGATION (2015), 68, 1–22. © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2014
See the URL below ...
As such it as an important document and it also gives the appearance of a quasi-science paper.
And I reckon it does not meet the standards for that.

Is that important?
No, it is not important if the paper is intended for the benefit of ‘Joe Public’ and the tabloid journalists.
Then again, if it was, the paper should have pointed that out; mind you, not in that derogatory fashion.
If, on the other hand, the aim was to provide a paper which gives us a reference to ‘confirm’ aspects of the disappearance of MH370, then it fails.
(And as always with the proviso, ‘in my humble opinion’.)

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 163):
Even if the paper came with some kind of written 'guarantee' it still does not 'confirm' anything.

Now you are confusing us!
You are telling us now that even if the paper did contain an unreserved assurance, a guarantee, it still would not confirm anything.
And yet, only a day ago you said this:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 138):
The following publication is what ultimately made me personally believe that the data is accurate and therefore at least good enough to confirm how long the plane was powered / flying with fuel for:

In other words, you were saying that (in your opinion) the data is good enough to 'confirm' how long for 9M-MRO was airborne.

I say it is not good enough because we haven't been given the necessary and unreserved assurances.
Whilst it does not carry much weight what I say, it is important what a paper says or does not say, when it appears to be endorsed by a highly regarded institution.

Edit: Phraseology


http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...e=e67575aeba8216165eecd461067b11c3

[Edited 2015-04-03 01:51:16]
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:24 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 166):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 163):
Even if the paper came with some kind of written 'guarantee' it still does not 'confirm' anything.

Now you are confusing us!
You are telling us now that even if the paper did contain an unreserved assurance, a guarantee, it still would not confirm anything.
And yet, only a day ago you said this:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 138):
The following publication is what ultimately made me personally believe that the data is accurate and therefore at least good enough to confirm how long the plane was powered / flying with fuel for:

In other words, you were saying that (in your opinion) the data is good enough to 'confirm' how long for 9M-MRO was airborne.

Yes, IMO the data is good enough to at least confirm how long 9M-MRO was powered / flying with fuel for.

What I meant when I said the following was:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 163):
Even if the paper came with some kind of written 'guarantee' it still does not 'confirm' anything.

When I said that, I meant that the 'guarantee' or 'oath' itself does not confirm anything. I did not mean the paper. I meant the 'guarantee' or 'oath' itself is basically useless. In other words, having an oath at the end of the paper would not make me judge the paper more favourably - it would not add any more credibility to the paper IMO.

IMO The guarantee or oath that you were wanting does not mean anything. A good paper doesn't need an oath to be considered good. Similarly, an oath will not make a bad paper any more credible / better. It does not change the content of the paper. It is just a few more lines on the paper somewhere that makes some people believe that the content must be true because it was said under oath - as if an oath is some kind of guarantee. Do you really think that murders who say they are innocent whilst under oath in court are telling the truth? Of course they are lying. Being under oath means bugger all to some people at the end of the day. I believe the Inmarsat data is correct and the paper is good - it doesn't matter to me if it is followed by a guarantee such as an oath or not. The same applies to when I can tell that somebody is lying - it doesn't matter if they are under oath or swearing to tell the truth or not - liars will lie and people can tell - in that instance the oath means bugger all. The guarantee or oath itself does not change anything - it does not confirm anything. It is just a few more words added to the paper. I am more interested in the content and the source. And, like I said, I accept the Inmarsat data and therefore it follows that it is good enough for me to confirm how long the plane was powered / flying with fuel for IMO. Having a written guarantee or oath at the end of the paper would not change my mind one bit. The guarantee or oath itself confirms nothing. Tell me, if there was a guarantee or an oath at the end of the Inmarsat paper or the people at Inmarsat came out and said "we guarantee that the data is 100% correct" would you then believe it? Would a simple oath or statement like that really change your mind on the data?
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
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:20 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 167):

What you are saying holds true if it were a newspaper article or one in a journal with a reputation a couple of notches higher up. You are absolutely right, also, that in any of those it wouldn't make any difference if there were statements that 'guarantee' its veracity. In fact, the contrary would be true, it would become a give-away.

The paper we are talking about is a different thing altogether.
For starters, it appeared in a reputable publication and appears to be endorsed by a reputable institution.
It also gives, and probably is meant to give the appearance of a science paper. If it it is meant to be such a paper, or the equivalent in its particular field, then it must comply with certain strict standards.

None of those standards, I should think, will require the writer of such a paper to state that:
"This is the truth and .. bla.., bla..., bla.
Instead, the unreserved assurances will come clearly from within the text itself.
(This is what I should have said in reply to lancelot07's question in reply #148.)

As I said, if there were proprietary issues, the paper should have stated that. If the full set of data was provided to the British, it should have been mentioned. The times when the analysis were done ought to have been mentioned, at least when they were first started. In whose offices was the analysis done? Was that in an university laboratory or in the technical facilities of Inmarsat? On and on it goes as to what should have been mentioned and what would normally be the case in a proper science paper.

But, please, don't take my word for it.
Look it up and see for yourself as to what constitutes a science paper or an equivalent document.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:07 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 137):

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 134):

Another of Zaharie's rants:

Since we're calling spades spades, let me just say, you must lead a very sheltered life if you think that counts as a rant. Goodness knows what you'd make of my twitter, especially as it regards Cameron and Osborne or the Royal Family.

That you are a high-potential suicidal-murderous pilot or whatever?   
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:03 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 168):
Look it up and see for yourself as to what constitutes a science paper or an equivalent document.

If your doubts about the data or paper stem from the fact that the paper lacks some of the extra details that your typical "science paper or equivalent document" would have then why didn't you just say that to begin with? Now I understand where you are coming from.

You first used the term "guarantee" and then you tried to clarify what you meant by "guarantee" by using the word "oath" - see below:

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 150):
lancelot07 - What do you mean by "guarantees" ?

Good question ....
I would think a statement, almost like an oath, which spells out that it is a guarantee.
Some statement of that nature should have been included in that paper, I reckon.

If you just said you think the paper fails the test in your opinion because it is lacking some of the extra details that a proper science paper comes with then that would have been understandable and we would not be having this discussion about semantics. Using the words 'guarantee' and then 'oath' didn't help get your point across and made it harder to understand  

But, having said that and now understanding where you are coming from, such extra details wouldn't change my opinion on the data / paper one bit.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 168):
For starters, it appeared in a reputable publication and appears to be endorsed by a reputable institution.

That the paper "appeared in a reputable publication and appears to be endorsed by a reputable institution" combined with the facts that the paper has the names of the authors as well as the company name 'Inmarsat' on it, like it should, is enough for me to believe that the paper is honest and accurate.   
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
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:26 pm

Quite some time back, the sighting of an airliner in the early morning hours in the Maldives was mentioned here on the threads. When the subject was brought up again a fair while later, it was quickly poo-pooed:
'We covered that'.
Believing that the issue was not resolved properly the first time, or even the second time around, I was going to bring this up once more.
It looks like 'The Weekend Australian', probably the most reputable newspaper here in Australia, has beat me to it.

This is the 'The Weekend Australian's Internet headline:
"Islanders can ‘help find’ MH370
Maldives
HEDLEY THOMAS
Some of the villagers on the island of Kuda Huvadhoo believe an aircraft they saw on the morning of March 8 last year could be MH370."

Unfortunately, the link to it will only work if one has subscribed. Maybe there is a way to link to it but I don't know.

The important questions in that regard are still unresolved:
Did the Islanders see an airliner, early in the morning, at roughly the right time, or not? (YES or NO ..??)
If yes, was it MH370 or not?
If it was not MH370, then which aircraft was it? (There wouldn't be too many flying low in that part of the world.)
At the time, the Maldives authorities denied there was any plane (if I remember this correctly).
Were the Islanders lying, at that time, or the authorities?

Yes, this topic was mentioned, i.e. 'covered', on A.net but it was never properly resolved.

The article in the 'The Weekend Australian' reports that the islanders of Kuda Huvadhoo ...
" .... do not understand why, after, more than a year, investigators involved in the search for the Boeing 777 have not come to hear first-hand about the large, low-flying passenger jet they insist they saw that fateful morning."

It goes on to say ...
"The Weekend Australian spent three days interviewing locals, all of whom described the incident in a similar way."

Towards the end of the article, The Weekend Australian also has this to say ....
' ... However, like the island of Kuda Huvadhoo, "the calculated position is completely inconsistent with the satellite handshake data that is the basis of the current search area". ...'
This was quoting Dr, Duncan, I believe ....

So maybe there is a need to touch on this again.

And maybe someone is able to provide a better link to this (the full) article.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:58 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 171):
Did the Islanders see an airliner, early in the morning, at roughly the right time, or not? (YES or NO ..??)
If yes, was it MH370 or not?

Maldives time zone is UTC+5 and sunrise after 6 AM local time. The claimed sighting is after sunrise, in other words after 1 AM UTC. The last MH370 satellite handshake was at 0019Z UTC consistent with fuel exhaustion. MH370 wouldn't have had endurance to fly until 1 AM UTC. So we can safely rule out Maldives sighting being MH370.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:05 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 172):
So we can safely rule out Maldives sighting being MH370.

So why then did The Weekend Australian send a journalist there for three days?
I know, to have a nice holiday..!!!
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:11 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 171):

an old article about that reported sighting: http://www.ibtimes.com/malaysia-airl...mining-latest-theory-mh370-1562221
With the distances mentioned, average speed would be approx. 220 kn.
iirc, the argument was, a T7 could not go so long so slow - quite apart from all the satellite data.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:35 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 172):
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 174):

So the question still remains ....
Did the islanders see an airliner or not?
Why would they tell fibs?
Did we have a mysterious disappearance (MH370) and, at roughly the same time, a mysterious flight, another airliner?
What's the saying: "The plot thickens..."
Edit:
And why didn't the investigators go there?

[Edited 2015-04-04 07:37:21]
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 175):

- they may. But then, an airliner was seen crashing into the south China sea near an oil platform.

- to be in the news, or they really saw a plane. When did they report their alleged sighting ? After the news was full with fotos of the plane ??

- we have a mysterious disappearance.

so far, there is no plot until it is at least proven how MH370 could be in the air 8h35min after takeoff and cover only 1700 nm.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:13 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 176):
But then, an airliner was seen crashing into the south China sea near an oil platform.

The South China Sea has nothing to do with what islanders in the Maldives may have seen or not.
The comment is typical of the sarcastic remarks we see all too often here on A.net; they are designed to obfuscate and create mischief, seemingly for fun, rather than contribute productively to the discussion.
Besides that, no airliner was seen crashing into the South China Sea near an oil platform at the time of the mysterious disappearance of MH370.
That’s beside the point ....

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 176):
- to be in the news, or they really saw a plane. When did they report their alleged sighting ? After the news was full with fotos of the plane ??

The Weekend Australian article had this to say:
“These people were not seeking attention and they did not go to the police about it, the police went to them after hearing about this.”

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 176):
- we have a mysterious disappearance.

We do indeed ...
Plus, at the time, we also had a mysterious airliner flying over islands where the authorities say there was none.
It doesn’t tally ....
And if in aviation it doesn't tally then it should be properly investigated. I would think, as a passenger ...

And I'm guessing here now ....
But, basically, what you are saying is, it is one thing if an airliner like MH370 mysteriously disappears.
If another, mysterious airliner flies nilly-willy through an area where MH370 may potentially have ended up, it is of no concern to anyone. Move on, nothing to see here ...! Hmm ..??

And there would be more questions. Just to ask one ...
Was that (mysterious) aircraft meant to be seen or would the pilots have preferred if it wasn’t?
If the latter was the case, why did they fly so low?

The Weekend Australian is not known to risk it’s (well earned) reputation with frivolous articles.
It published this as a major, leading front-page article.

If we then combine this with the comments by Tim Clark, in another major news publication at the other side of the world, where he doubts that 9M-MRO is where they are looking, we get the possibility of an altogether different picture.
Maybe we’ll hear more on this yet ....
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:30 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 172):
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 171):
Did the Islanders see an airliner, early in the morning, at roughly the right time, or not? (YES or NO ..??)
If yes, was it MH370 or not?

Maldives time zone is UTC+5 and sunrise after 6 AM local time. The claimed sighting is after sunrise, in other words after 1 AM UTC. The last MH370 satellite handshake was at 0019Z UTC consistent with fuel exhaustion. MH370 wouldn't have had endurance to fly until 1 AM UTC. So we can safely rule out Maldives sighting being MH370.

That point would not be accepted as fact by those who are sceptical of the Inmarsat data, such as YoungMans  
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
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:10 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 178):
That point would not be accepted as fact by those who are sceptical of the Inmarsat data

I think there has to be a limit/border on what is acceptable for discussions and not for serious credible alternatives. Not accepting factual information, is not a premise to base a theory as credible. Those go in the alternative theories and I don't think it makes sense for alternative theories to be debated against theories based on factual information released by the accident investigators. Selective use and selective (deliberate) rejection of the factual report also go in the alternative theory category.

The question is, do we want to discuss facts, or fiction this topic?
If facts, then can we stick to the facts, if fiction, then can we stop attacking those with whacky (according to each and eeryone of us, separately or together) theories?

 Smile

[Edited 2015-04-04 22:12:16]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:32 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 177):
The South China Sea has nothing to do with what islanders in the Maldives may have seen or not.
The comment is typical of the sarcastic remarks we see all too often here on A.net

I concede, the remark was a bit cheap.
But at least the alleged sighting at the South China sea was at a time the plane was actually there, and it was before the whole affair became a mystery. And the person who saw it made a statement that came close to an oath and signed with his name, which should appeal to you.

The islanders may have seen a plane.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:05 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 179):
Not accepting factual information, is not a premise to base a theory as credible.

The issue is that the Inmarsat data is not being accepted as 'factual information' by some people and therefore it naturally follows for them that alternative scenarios remain possible - not necessarily 'credible', but possible.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 180):
And the person who saw it made a statement that came close to an oath and signed with his name, which should appeal to you.

That person also gave his passport details.
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
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:38 am

The Maldives story was picked up again by the Mail yesterday.

For reference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...vestigators-visit-share-story.html

Rgds
Flying around India
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:18 am

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 182):
The Maldives story was picked up again by the Mail yesterday.

For reference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...vestigators-visit-share-story.html

Rgds

Given that not a shred of the plane has been found after so long, I think it wouldn't hurt if the authorities spent an additional small ammount of change and asked if some of those who believe they might have seen the missing plane were willing to take some kind of polygraph... I'd be interested to see the results if it was done properly, of course...
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
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:40 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 175):
Did the islanders see an airliner or not?

Possibly they did.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 175):
Why would they tell fibs?

Who said they were?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 175):
What's the saying: "The plot thickens..."


Quoting YoungMans (Reply 175):
And why didn't the investigators go there?

Perhaps, given factual information available to them, they don't consider it worthy of further investigation?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:36 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 184):

Isn't life interesting ....
If you think the tin-hat away, and no (UFO.!!) logo on the jumper, that could almost have been me some twenty, thirty years ago. At one stage, too, I was also considering whether I should get serious with ham radio.

Getting serious now with the topic ...
Why is it that the point of the Maldives attracts so much ridicule and intense rejection?

According to the Factual Information Report ...
"Aircraft did not respond to ‘handshake’ from Satellite Earth Ground Station at 0115 UTC March 8 (0915 MYT)"
That was exactly at 0615 Maldives times.
That in turn is the time, the islanders reported, when this mysterious aircraft overflew their island. Isn't that strange?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 179):
I think there has to be a limit/border on what is acceptable for discussions and not for serious credible alternatives.

Agreed.
When a mysterious airliner, which possibly looked like MH370, and sounded like it, is said to have overflown a Maldives island, very low, then that would be such a serious credible alternative, would it not?

The issue is even more serious and credible when the Curtin University is quoted as saying that strong underwater sounds were recorded, from that approximate area at roughly that time frame.

The seriousness and credibility of that alternative is reiterated still further when Australia's most reputable newspaper alerts the public on these very issues.

Wouldn't the appearance of such a large and mysterious aircraft over that island warrant an investigation?
Regardless of whether it was connected to MH370 or not.
Maybe it was, maybe it was MH370 ..??
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3614
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:44 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 185):

Maybe the data is indeed unreliable and MH370 ended up somewhere else in the Indian Ocean than suspected. Or maybe the islanders are just lying to get some free publicity and money, who knows?
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:26 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 186):
Maybe the data is indeed unreliable and MH370 ended up somewhere else in the Indian Ocean than suspected.

A lot of people would have a lot of egg on their face (as the English saying goes) if that were to be the case.
It is also no surprise, then, that just even the idea is being ridiculed and vehemently rejected.
Make no mistake, though; if the 'The Australian' (newspaper) is reporting on this in a front page article, you can bet your bottom dollar that something is afoot.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 186):
Or maybe the islanders are just lying to get some free publicity and money, who knows?

Having spent 10 years in Papua New Guinea (1968 to 78), I have come a fair a bit into contact with native people, obviously.

My opinion would be that the Maldives islanders had no reason not to report the overflight of that .., let's call it the mysterious airliner. In the first instance, those reports would have been only local; the reports on it wouldn't have been meant for the world.
I believe they saw the aircraft very early in the morning but were contacted about it only in the afternoon.
At the time they sighted the airliner, they certainly didn't know that MH370 was missing.

And always the point comes up whether they would try to make money out of it.
Of course they would; they are not stupid. One has to make a living. Of course they would have charged the journalists who were there for three days, plus whoever else wants to know. Wouldn't you ..??
News is money, big time ....
 
Kevil
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:02 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:07 pm

The Factual Information shows on page 29 blurred Figure 1.1F - Primary Radar Targets (track), plotted by AAT using EVA & Plotter 01.01-27 (From Take-off). On the alleged turn back route to peninsula we can see four targets with flight identification P1738, P1793, P1812 and P1605 (it is hardly to read the numbers; they are not mentioned in the text part of the Factual Information too). According to me it does not make any sense to consider them as MH370. Any idea what's going on there? Note that last two targets have the unrealistic speed 0607 and 0694 knots.

Figure 1.1F

[Edited 2015-04-05 07:11:30]

[Edited 2015-04-05 07:21:30]
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting Kevil (Reply 188):
Note that last two targets have the unrealistic speed 0607 and 0694 knots.

It looks like 0594 and 0607 to me.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:46 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 185):
Getting serious now with the topic ...

The Maldivians may well have seen a plane. I have no reason to believe they're lying. However, I don't believe there's any chance what they saw was MH370.

Likewise, the oil worker who saw "a burning plane fall from the sky" in the South China sea, absolutely believes that's what he saw, so why aren't you all gung-ho about investigating that 'sighting' more?

In all this, one should never forget that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:27 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 185):
According to the Factual Information Report ...
"Aircraft did not respond to ‘handshake’ from Satellite Earth Ground Station at 0115 UTC March 8 (0915 MYT)"
That was exactly at 0615 Maldives times.
That in turn is the time, the islanders reported, when this mysterious aircraft overflew their island. Isn't that strange?

I will repeat this for one last time: MH370 took off 1640 UTC. MH370 wouldn't have had ENDURANCE to fly until 0115 UTC, or 8½ hours flight time, no matter what speed and route it took. This is the reason the Maldives sighting can be safely excluded.

[Edited 2015-04-05 12:43:55]
 
Kevil
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:02 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:42 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 190):
Likewise, the oil worker who saw "a burning plane fall from the sky" in the South China sea, absolutely believes that's what he saw, so why aren't you all gung-ho about investigating that 'sighting' more?

That's why I do not understand that nobody disproved what Mike McKay saw nor he is not mentioned in the Factual Information. His evidence is the only real proof available backed by his email sent to Vietnamese authorities. I trust him and I am in touch with him:

Dan,
I wrote what I thought might help the search but within two days of my email being leaked the search in the South China Sea was called-off. On the basis of the (belated) primary military radar readings coming to light, the search was then moved to the Andaman Sea. I think the South China Sea search was called-off prematurely and as such I would agree with your assessment. Acting on my sighting, the Vietnamese sent out one flight only (six days after MH370 disappeared) and then were told to stop looking.
I have been hoping for some evidence to prove that is was not MH370 I saw, but unfortunately there has been no proof yet.
Mike.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:09 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 190):
Likewise, the oil worker who saw "a burning plane fall from the sky" in the South China sea, absolutely believes that's what he saw, so why aren't you all gung-ho about investigating that 'sighting' more?

The South China sea was searched, without result. Radar and satellite data both agree that the plane crossed the peninsula. But he may have seen a burning plane.

Quote:
In all this, one should never forget that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

  
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1707
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:49 pm

Every time there is a big catastrophe, there will be people coming up afterwards, reporting sightings. Some to the investigators, some to the press, some to social media. Some who really saw something significant, some who honestly thought they saw something but it did not exactly correspond to reality, some who saw something but it was unrelated, and some who fraudulently peddle their stories.

An investigation looks at all of these, but the mere existence of someone claiming something does not mean that there's something that actually relates to the accident. Just look at the usual "the engines were on fire" reports from some accidents, etc. You need to correlate evidence with other evidence. Radar plots; airport staff reports; FDR.

The difficulty in the MH370 case is of course that one piece of evidence, the satellite track, is fairly solid, justified, and tested (IMHO) but can be backed up by other evidence only for a part of the track where there was also radar evidence. We need to find the wreckage to gather more evidence, and it may take a long time. But eventually I believe we will find it.

However, it does not follow that we should immediately accept other evidence, particularly sightings. Airplanes fly around the world all the time, how do we know a particular sighting was of MH370? I'd call this particular case a mistake of some sort. But nothing is out of the question until we have more evidence.
 
SoJo
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:29 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:56 pm

The only sure thing about this is the aircraft is missing. You all keep waffling about this that and the other. But, at least one person has managed to get over 3000 posts in just over a year. What has anyone achieved in garnering the truth? No one. Show me one piece of evidence that makes any of you long time posters correct. Just give it up until something is found, or are just trying to make this thread reach the 100 point. Get a life away from thread please
RAF Abingdon 1967. I met Beverley from Blackburn. Fantastic!
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:16 pm

The message we are hearing is this:
YES, the islanders in the Maldives have seen an airliner (not just a little seaplane) fly over their part of the world.
No, it cannot be MH370 (...because it would mean the sacred data is false and a lot of assumptions would fall in a heap.)
And, NO, we are not concerned about an airliner flying secretly in the area where MH370 might have come to grieve.
In any case, as soon as the Maldives are brought up, let's change it to the South China Sea area.
Maybe that is a message in itself ....
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:59 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 196):
In any case, as soon as the Maldives are brought up, let's change it to the South China Sea area. Maybe that is a message in itself ....

Well, answer the question yourself. Why are you insistent that the Maldives 'lead' is followed up, but not the South China Sea one?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 196):
we are not concerned about an airliner flying secretly in the area where MH370 might have come to grieve.

So how do you reconcile this?

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 191):
I will repeat this for one last time: MH370 took off 1640 UTC. MH370 wouldn't have had ENDURANCE to fly until 0115 UTC, or 8½ hours flight time, no matter what speed and route it took. This is the reason the Maldives sighting can be safely excluded.
Quoting Kevil (Reply 192):
That's why I do not understand that nobody disproved what Mike McKay saw

How do you disprove something like that? I could say I saw MH370 flying low over my house that night - how do you disprove it? With all respect to Mr. McKay, he doesn't actually know what he saw.

Quote:
"I saw a sudden glow of fire above the horizon – which caught my immediate attention – although, of course I could not have known whether it was definitely an aircraft or not."
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:01 pm

The islanders not only saw it, they heard it as well loud and clear. It seems to me that if we are to consider that the captain was up to something (which I loathe to believe) then we have to think more seriously of the Maldives sighting...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18261
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 78

Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:47 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 198):
The islanders not only saw it, they heard it as well loud and clear.

They may well have seen and heard a plane. The question is, how can a plane with seven and a half hours worth of fuel on board be flying over the Maldives over eight and a half hours after departure from KUL?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

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