rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:25 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 143):
If this ever got anywhere near military occupied islands in the SIO,

What military occupied islands in the SIO?
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:36 am

The Maldives have ten airports of their own, four of which are classed as 'international.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_Maldives

It seems more than probable that the 'low-flying airliner' was in fact just an ordinary routine one, possibly landing at a different airport for one reason or another? But. if so, why haven't the 'authorities' said so long since?
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:43 am

Quoting rwessel (Reply 150):
What military occupied islands in the SIO?

The French on Kerguelen Islands .... although, they are closer to Antarctica than anywhere else.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:51 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 152):
The French on Kerguelen Islands .... although, they are closer to Antarctica than anywhere else.

50-100 researchers are not a military base. A radio station for communicating with spacecraft doesn’t qualify either.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:18 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 151):
It seems more than probable that the 'low-flying airliner' was in fact just an ordinary routine one, possibly landing at a different airport for one reason or another?

Quite likely and possible, one should think.
But why, then, did the Maldives Defence Force deny last year that there were any such aircraft movements?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think it would be an 'ordinary routine flight' if it is low over an island where there is no airport for miles and, if such a (very rare) flight is seen, it is always high up and with contrails.
What more, a routine flight should easily be traceable, should it not?
Why this big consternation over it?
Why is there that preferred silence as soon as that sighting is mentioned?
Something simply doesn't tally up!
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:11 am

Quoting joffie (Reply 142):
MH370 searchers checking data and methodology as Indian Ocean search continues
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...inues/story-fnizu68q-1227315872082

What do you think?

Given that the current search area will be expanded if it is not found in the current search area it suggests to me that authorities at this stage still believe the plane is somewhere in the SIO where that data suggests.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 143):
We do know that several military forces including Malaysia, Indonesia, UK and USA failed to see or ignored this a/c and we believe that there was no way they would have missed a 777 even without a transponder.
We suspect if MH370 flew north military forces there would have seen MH370 on their radars, especially into Russia, India, and disputed areas in that region that would have been closely monitored.
Have some military forces, that are supposed to id non-authorized or enemy aircraft just miss it or are they, or senior officers, hiding what they saw to so not show flaws in their systems to keep out enemy aircraft ? If this ever got anywhere near military occupied islands in the SIO, I am quite sure military staff would have seen it and taken action. Of course the reality is that we are dealing with humans, humans fail and also like to cover up their mistakes.

The covering-up of mistakes is possible. The other type of 'covering-up' is also possible  
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 147):
Quoting joffie (Reply 142):
MH370 searchers checking data and methodology as Indian Ocean search continues

The T7 is lost, and they are making guesses.... (my translation)

I agree.

'Educated guess' was the term I used a long time ago to describe the decisions where to search based on the data, but the longer the search goes on and comes up empty you have to wonder just how educated the guesses are...

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 148):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 135):
I would love to really find out what exact 'waypoints' were extracted from the deleted files on Z's computer

Yet more BS from the early days it seems:

Quote:
UK daily The Telegraph reported last month that a deleted flight path had been recovered from Zaharie's simulator, which had been used to practise landing an aircraft on a small runway on an unnamed island in the southern Indian Ocean.
.....
Acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had denied the Telegraph report, calling it “irresponsible” to boost the paper’s circulation.
"If we want to entertain the newspapers in UK, they will have new stories every day."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...gl=uk


We should not be surprised that

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 148):
more BS

is linked to something said by

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 148):
Hishammuddin

:D

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 149):
Instead we get the 'The Weekend Australian' dwelling on it. I wonder why.


They have to make $$$ too  Wink

[Edited 2015-04-24 17:17:36]
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 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:23 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 143):
We suspect if MH370 flew north military forces there would have seen MH370 on their radars, especially into Russia, India, and disputed areas in that region that would have been closely monitored.

If we suspect that MH370 did fly north ....
One should think, expect and hope that the military forces of various countries nearby would eventually have seen MH370 on their radars. If it went that way, they most likely would have ....

That, however, does not automatically say or imply that those defence forces would have told the world; quite the contrary.
They may have instead cooperated with 'a bigger brother' who slips them a few favours here and there or who is otherwise pretty persuasive.

If we assume that MH370 turned north by north-east in the area around NILAM (just draw a straight line north from there) there is no question that MH370 would be 'seen' by military radars somewhere on the way. But that does not mean, one can imagine, that those militaries would volunteer any information on what might have happened.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:07 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 156):
If we assume that MH370 turned north

That would put it into China. Same with the northern arc - almost completely in China.
The chinese who finds it would be a hero!
 
P206
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:30 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:28 pm

Quote:
An aviation technology expert claims he has found the remains of MH 370 but needs £1.3million to find it.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/25/mh370-...al-aviation-expert-claims-5166318/
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:49 pm

KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:56 pm

Quoting P206 (Reply 158):

For a lot less money than that, I would immediately travel to the appropriate island(s) in the Maldives and speak with the villagers who claim to have seen an airliner within less than an hour of MH370's supposed demise and which reportedly looked just like that aircraft.
And, of course, I would share the findings with the contributors to A.net; Scouts Honour!
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2004
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:48 pm

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 159):
That first came up a year ago this week:

He probably is just looking for they money. We have a similar explorer company in Sweden
who every now and then claims to have found "mysterious" objects which they
want to investigate but they say that they need funds. Needless to say they never
present their findings but keep it a bit in the dark so that they can ask for more funds later.

I think this would be a similar case, he wants money so that he can "Investigate" it but I think
he just the most of us others "know" that it is not the case.
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
namezero111111
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 4:19 pm

Quoting P206 (Reply 158):
An aviation technology expert claims he has found the remains of MH 370 but needs £1.3million to find it.

If he found it, why would he need funds to find it?
  
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:26 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 157):
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 156):If we assume that MH370 turned north That would put it into China. Same with the northern arc - almost completely in China.The chinese who finds it would be a hero!

Or on the contrary, the Chinese who have known of its whereabouts and participated in the cover-up for so long would be villains  

That is, of course, if the plane was intentionally taken there...
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
 
LovesCoffee
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:11 am

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 162):
If he found it, why would he need funds to find it?

  

I wondered the same thing.
Life is too short for cheap coffee.
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sat May 02, 2015 12:42 pm

Let me set something straight: Is it possible that in the 21st century with all the technology and satellites that the military bases in the area do not have the means of tracking down all traffic in their vicinity? Certainly they can, otherwise what are they doing?It is a matter of defense. They will not reveal such information because this is the essence of undercover operations but they do know. Similarly, the countries involved also have such classified information at their disposal but the reason why it is not revealed to the public must be because this is not a simple case. One is covering for the other.Something very ominous must have happened,more terrifying than "the pilot did it theory" which is not satisfying to say the least....I would hate to see this thread disappear like MH370 has!
 
EC135
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2000 2:58 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 03, 2015 6:34 am

According to the various scenarios all long discussed before, we have to come back to one important point: Is it possible for the captain (or the copilot) to do all those necessary things to let the plane disappear in that few minutes? To eliminate the other pilot, to switch off ACARS, to fly and navigate the plane in darkness, and so on... Has there been made a timeline to see, who long each action takes? How long did it take e.g. to switch of ACARS?
The focus must be set on the cargo, the boarded passengers and on the exact moment of disappearance. I my opinion it is pretty obvious, that this was a well planned mission of military precision. Is it possible to rule out that highly trained special forces have borded MH370 under false names? The persons with fake ID's for example, they could have been killed before ever boarding the plane with some highly trained special forces boarding instead? There so many scenarios, but the truth about the disappearance of MH370 is far from suicide, accident, and so on... correct me, if I am wrong.

[Edited 2015-05-03 00:00:25]
 
namezero111111
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 03, 2015 9:04 am

Quoting EC135 (Reply 166):

Nobody has come public with knowledge of the "truth", but yes, I agree. Especially on the part about military precision.
However:
1. They probably wouldn't forge faked passports - that only raises suspicion (unless that argument was planned into the mission)
2. They'd either have to plan for a suicide mission or were picked up whereever the plane went, or short themselves afterwards.. Who knows.
3. Motive. What government would want to take down a Malaysian Civilian Airliner and why? Was there someone/a group of people onboard with secrect/new technology, etc?


I'm not trying to disregard anyone's effort, but who knows if the Australians are actually searching anywhere? Maybe they know it's not there? Of course that would imply Australian collusion...
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue May 05, 2015 1:54 am

Quoting EC135 (Reply 166):
Is it possible for the captain (or the copilot) to do all those necessary things to let the plane disappear in that few minutes? To eliminate the other pilot, to switch off ACARS, to fly and navigate the plane in darkness, and so on... Has there been made a timeline to see, who long each action takes?

If one of the pilots did it they could have 'eliminated' the other pilot before those few minutes between the ATC handoff and the turn around began.

However, *if* that is what happened and the last voice heard talking to ATC was the Captain, then it is obvious who did it under that scenario.

Having said that, I guess either one could have eliminated the other pretty quickly in those 'few minutes' you mention if they got it right.

A hard blow to the right part of the skull with a hard object when the other pilot wasn't looking could have eliminated either pilot quickly and easily.

I don't believe there would have been a problem doing the things you mentioned in the timeframe between the ATC handoff and the turn around.
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 79

Tue May 05, 2015 6:10 am

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 167):
3. Motive. What government would want to take down a Malaysian Civilian Airliner and why? Was there someone/a group of people onboard with secrect/new technology, etc?

Uh, none. Or one that is so bloody stupid and incompetent that they could never pull such a caper off.

[quote=777Jet,reply=168]I don't believe there would have been a problem doing the things you mentioned in the timeframe between the ATC handoff and the turn around.

The ONLY requisite was rendering Fariq incapable of interfering, be it through locking him out or something along the lines of what you elude to. The rest is pro forma...it's beyond simple for a pilot with so much experience on type and with so much familiarity with the region (radar installations, airspace etc...)
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue May 05, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting gzm (Reply 165):
Is it possible that in the 21st century with all the technology and satellites that the military bases in the area do not have the means of tracking down all traffic in their vicinity? Certainly they can, otherwise what are they doing?It is a matter of defense.

It is possible, no doubt. There is nothing to defend between Sumatra and Antarctica and beyond.
So it is not only possible, but very likely.

Of course, Australia has a very advanced radar system, if it was on they might have seen something. Or some US Navy unit may have noticed something. But on the alleged path, the plane did not threaten anybody. And sure, the military, no matter whose, will not tell the public.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Thu May 07, 2015 12:18 am

Underwater search vehicle / drone operations suspended as the Southern Hemisphere winter and bad weather / conditions set in.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...change-as-winter-conditions-set-in

'MH370: search for missing flight to change as winter conditions set in'

"Preparations are underway to ensure the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 continues through the southern hemisphere winter.

The weather is already affecting use of the automated underwater search vehicle, and rough seas are making it difficult to launch and recover the drone.

Australia’s Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) said a decision had been made to suspend drone operations during winter but that plans had been modified so the search could continue and an expanded 120,000 square-kilometre area could be scoured."
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
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 5:42 am

I was surprised to find a full two page article on MH370 in yesterday's Daily Telegraph (Sydney), especially given the lack of recent media attention given to MH370.

I was also surprised that the article was written by Byron Bailey, again, given that he has had a few articles published on MH370 in recent times.

Many things he said echoed what he said in previous articles, but he added a few interesting things.

The article in the print edition newspaper was titled, "MH370 Lies Intact in a Darkest Hell".

Below is the link to the online version, which has a different title.

I will address some interesting quotes / points below:



"MH370: Only one conclusion makes sense"

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...sense/story-fni0cx12-1227346739023

""However, after the seventh satellite ping, MH370 could have flown for another 50 minutes (700kms), so the position line intersecting the arc from the satellite may be quite broad.""

- Up to 700kms from the 7th ping location, but in what direction??? Good luck to those crunching the numbers and determining the 'priority' search area...



""As far as the Diego Garcia conspiracy theorists and the aircraft seen over the Maldives at 8am, I have flown many times into the Maldives and also into Gan, part of the South Island chain of Diego Garcia. There is quite a lot of airline and military aircraft traffic in that region, so sighting an aircraft at 8am does not have any significance.""

- Mr Bailey seems to be quick to dismiss the more 'conspiracy' type theories. How do you feel about that, YoungMans???



""I believe someone hijacked the aircraft, turned all communication equipment off over the South China Sea, then flew westward towards Penang and reprogrammed the Flight Management System to the southern Indian Ocean, otherwise the aircraft would have flown itself to Beijing. Who reprogrammed the FMS?"" ""Read that 100 times then try to find a B777 captain who will tell you differently because only a qualified jet pilot could have inserted manually defined waypoints of latitude and longitude into the Flight Management System, as there are no airways leading to the Southern Indian Ocean.""

- Good on Mr Bailey for stating his scenario, as well as for indicating who he thinks did it (next quote, below).



""A crash by a very large aircraft like the Boeing 777 would result in a huge amount of debris that would float for months and months. Even the life jackets still in their pouches normally stowed under the seats and seat cushions would float. So why, with the strong westerly winds the roaring forties north of Antarctica, has not even one item of debris washed up on the shores of Tasmania, the South Island of New Zealand or Chile. MH370 did not crash. It was ditched under control, according to Boeing 777 flight manual procedures, that is gear up, into wind as slow as possible. Why do airline pilots and cabin crew practice ditching, life jacket donning and egress into life rafts etc if this was not feasible? Only a pilot could have flown the aircraft via the reprogrammed FMS and autopilot for seven hours. There were only two pilots on board. Only one had the necessary experience and ability to make this happen. The jet airline pilot fraternity is almost unanimous as to who was responsible.""

- Mr Bailey's money is on Z.



""The search area is approximately 6500m deep in places with cliffs and difficult undersea terrain. The pressure underwater increases by 1 atmosphere every 10m. This means at 6500m, the pressure is nearly 10,000 lbs per square inch. Recovering the FDR may be able to confirm that the aircraft was, as suspected, ditched under control. The CVR is a closed loop of two hours duration and if any information is gleaned it may help. One expert I consulted was of the opinion that the FDR and CVR in sealed steel boxes have a design limit crush depth of 4500m.""

- If the plane is ever found, and if the boxes are ever recovered, I hope they are intact and that the data is recoverable...



""If the MH370 hijacker intentionally controls the aircraft for seven hours, as stated by the head of the world’s largest Boeing 777 airline operator on German TV, into the remote Southern Indian Ocean then he must have been aware that he would die as there are no airfields within thousands of kilometres. This therefore suggests a preplanned suicide.""

- Mr Bailey refers to previous comments made by TC.



""All competent experienced jet pilots believe MH370 did not crash and therefore it was not a mysterious accident. I believe MH370 rests intact in the darkest place in the world, 6500m down in a cold, remote, lonely place.""

- Interesting choice of words; "All competent experienced jet pilots believe..."

Anyway, I just thought I'd share that article for those still interested in the greatest aviation mystery of all time.

Quoting gzm (Reply 165):
I would hate to see this thread disappear like MH370 has!

  

Agreed, obviously 
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
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 6:44 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 172):
""However, after the seventh satellite ping, MH370 could have flown for another 50 minutes (700kms), so the position line intersecting the arc from the satellite may be quite broad.""

- Up to 700kms from the 7th ping location, but in what direction??? Good luck to those crunching the numbers and determining the 'priority' search area...

From where does he get up 700 kms of flight time? The 7th ping was most likely generated as a result of fuel exhaustion, loss of power to the SATCOM modem and APU starting up briefly.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1713
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 9:01 am

Quoting gzm (Reply 165):
would hate to see this thread disappear like MH370 has!

Would that be ... taken by one of the pilots ... due to flames ... or hijacked by trolls? 
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 10:01 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 173):
From where does he get up 700 kms of flight time? The 7th ping was most likely generated as a result of fuel exhaustion, loss of power to the SATCOM modem and APU starting up briefly.

Agreed, no idea what the glide ratio on a 777 is but it isn't anywhere near that high, I would guess somewhere nearer to the 80-100NM mark, probably less.

EDIT: He probably means under full power which makes no sense

[Edited 2015-05-10 03:11:28]
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 10:34 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 173):
From where does he get up 700 kms of flight time? The 7th ping was most likely generated as a result of fuel exhaustion, loss of power to the SATCOM modem and APU starting up briefly.

He really should have explained 'how' because without an explanation of how he came to that conclusion it makes no sense, especially if that 7th ping was the result of fuel exhaustion.

Even from FL400 I'm guessing the 777 could glide for around 220kms - no where near the 700kms Baily states.

I believe he needs to offer an explanation if that calculation is to be taken seriously. After all, he is a "competent experienced jet pilot", to use his term, so he should be able to provide his calculations  

Here is a question: If the 7th ping was the result of fuel exhaustion, what would have triggered the ping; The first engine running out of fuel (assuming one engine ran dry before the other if the fuel in the tanks was not the exact same), or, would it have been triggered after the second / final running engine ran out of fuel and shut down?

If the fuel balance in the tanks was a fair bit out one engine could have been powered for more than just a few minutes longer than the other hence allowing the plane to fly under power on one engine for a while, but that wouldn't really matter if the ping would *only* have been triggered after both engines went dry and stopped.

[Edited 2015-05-10 03:39:20]
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 79

Sun May 10, 2015 11:12 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 172):
Mr Bailey seems to be quick to dismiss the more 'conspiracy' type theories. How do you feel about that, YoungMans???

I think I can do one better than that.
First off, though let me point out a few glaring discrepancies in Mr Bailey's article. Here are just some ....
If the aircraft could have been airborne for another 50 minutes, it seems to contradict the Factual Information report.
A journalist with Mr Bailey's impressive credentials should have known this.
An extra 50 minutes would also mean, then, that the aircraft the villagers saw in the Maldives could very well have been MH370. As elsewhere reported, too, it is unusual for that size airliner to fly low over that particular island; unlike what Mr Bailey tries to make us believe.
The Maldives villagers are also reported to have seen the aircraft in question at 06:15 AM, local time, not at 08:00 AM as Mr Bailey states in his article.
As reported to us, TC (Tim Clark) did not appear on German TV but gave an interview to the 'Der Spiegel'.
In that interview, TC states quite categorically that he doubts that the aircraft (MH370) is where they say it is and that he also doubts the veracity of the satellite data. The exact opposite of what Mr Bailey has him say.
One could easily come to the conclusion that Mr Bailey is having too many beers with the spooks.

Another point in all this, and this is concerning, here we have two newspapers, one more reputable than the other, and just those two alone are already differing substantially in various important details. It goes to show, whether it is The Australian or the Daily Telegraph, deep down the main-stream-media has nothing but contempt for the general public.

But then, luckily, we also have the Alternative Media ....
And here now it might get 'pretty hairy' for some of the more 'Down-to-Earth' A.net readers. Please beware!

New Dawn, an Australian alternative magazine, also carried an article on MH370, in its May-June edition.
It dealt with several questions, such as ....
Shot Down or Cyber-jacked
The Human Factor
Someone Knows
.... topics of that nature.

And even UFO's get a mention.
The magazine quotes Malaysia's Air Force Chief Rodzali Daud as having said that,
".... military radar detected a UFO in an area in the northern Malacca Strait at 2:15 AM local time on Saturday about an hour after the plane vanished from air traffic control screens ...."

One that really stands out is the question whether we are dealing with a modern-day version of the Philadelphia Experiment. Recall the twenty technicians of the American Freescale Semiconductor company.
Was it pure coincidence that all of them were on the same flight?
Why would a company dare to send so many of its important staff on the one aircraft?

The New Dawn article dwells a fair bit on Quantum Physics, how everything '... out there is nothing but wave forms'. To illustrate the question, the magazine paints a scenario in which the twenty Freescale techs conduct a scientific experiment. That experiment, so the scenario has it, went okay in every computer model they could conceive of but may have gone seriously awry in real life, perhaps due to the size of the aircraft.
Did MH370 go missing into another dimension or something like that?
Is that in fact possible? Would the technology exist?

Whilst I can hear the howls of 'conspiracy theory' already, consider this ....
Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics) is serious science and deals with some real fundamental questions like..,
"... is it matter that creates consciousness or does consciousness create matter."
No doubt, either, many will have heard of string theories, other dimensions and stuff like that; Quantum Physics.

Is it possible, then, that with the disappearance of MH370 we are dealing with something, some weird phenomenon hitherto completely unheard of? Perhaps deliberately. If that were the case, a few select people in various governments or their agencies would know, of course, but those who have no need to know don't even get to hear the rumours, let alone see the e-mails.

As a fair few contributors here on A.net seem to suspect, either the explanation for the disappearance of MH370 is straight forward (if only they could find it) or else there is a lot more to it, much more than 'those who know' would like the public to know.

And regardless of anything, it seems almost certain that various people in various government agencies do know what happened.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 11:37 am

I would also like clarification regarding the following:


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...inter/story-fni0xqi3-1227339166131

""THE Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre (JACC) says a decision has been made to suspend drone operations in the search area during winter.""

""It says plans have been modified so the search can continue and the expanded 120,000 square-kilometre area can be scoured.""


In one sentence it says that drone operations, therefore the underwater search, will be suspended during winter. Yet, in the following sentence it is said 'so the search can continue' under modified plans - IMHO this point needs elaboration / to be explained.

Either the search will be suspended or it will be modified so that it can continue. If so, how?

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 177):
One could easily come to the conclusion that Mr Bailey is having too many beers with the spooks.

That he has had several articles published over the last few weeks or months without much new info, and without changing his position, I do wonder if his scenario being repeated from time to time has some other kind of motive behind it such as - get someone with decent pilot credentials to keep promoting one of the most simple scenarios so the public buy it then eventually call the search off after most people have lost interest.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 177):
Is it possible, then, that with the disappearance of MH370 we are dealing with something, some weird phenomenon hitherto completely unheard of?

I think we are either dealing with something very simple, something as simple as one of the pilots did it, or something with much more behind the scenes activity involved (kind of like what you say below).

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 177):
As a fair few contributors here on A.net seem to suspect, either the explanation for the disappearance of MH370 is straight forward (if only they could find it) or else there is a lot more to it, much more than 'those who know' would like the public to know.

I do feel that way. I think it is as simple as a pilot did it and it ditched mostly intact and sank like under Mr Bailey's scenario - which explains why nothing has been found yet. If not, I feel there is a lot more to it. No way do I think that MH370 was an 'accident'.

[Edited 2015-05-10 04:48:53]

[Edited 2015-05-10 04:54:32]
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
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1713
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 11:46 am

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 173):
From where does he get up 700 kms of flight time? The 7th ping was most likely generated as a result of fuel exhaustion, loss of power to the SATCOM modem and APU starting up briefly.

Maybe he thought that if there's a ping at time X, then the next hourly ping is an hour away, and you should be able to fly at least 700 km during that, even against wind or other conditions. That is of course flawed thinking, assuming the analysis of the reasons that the partial ping might be generated are valid.
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 12:16 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 178):
I do feel that way. I think it is as simple as a pilot did it and it ditched mostly intact and sank like under Mr Bailey's scenario - which explains why nothing has been found yet. If not, I feel there is a lot more to it. No way do I think that MH370 was an 'accident'.

I don't believe even with the proper ditching procedures done to perfection it would remain mostly intact and sink. Apart from timing the impact perfectly which would be unreasonably hard all it would take is the tiniest improper contact for it to probably break apart. Plus the sea would have to be calm.
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14660
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 2:49 pm

How would this plane have landed in the water without possibly one engine out but the other running for a few minutes more and possibly no pilot control or likely autopilot in command ? Likely the engines started to cut out at cruising altitude, that is a long way down. Would it have been a long, gradual glide path hitting the water as a relatively low angle or perhaps a rather sudden flat spin ? Is it possible that If the plane hit at a low angle of attack on the water, it might mean very limited breakup of the a/c, thus very little debris ? If a flat, pancake landing, more like AF447, it likely would have broken it up with a lot of small floating debris. We also have to recognize that debris, if any, that floated to the East may have ended up in very isolated shores with little or no human access or communities.
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 5:51 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 181):
How would this plane have landed in the water without possibly one engine out but the other running for a few minutes more and possibly no pilot control or likely autopilot in command ? Likely the engines started to cut out at cruising altitude, that is a long way down. Would it have been a long, gradual glide path hitting the water as a relatively low angle or perhaps a rather sudden flat spin ?

Very unlikely, with the asymmetric thrust it would not be a controlled descent in any sense. Without anyone manipulating the controls I doubt it would be a controlled glide, it would probably enter a spin early on. The A/P would trip in a dual engine failure.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 181):
Is it possible that If the plane hit at a low angle of attack on the water, it might mean very limited breakup of the a/c, thus very little debris ?

I personally don't believe there is much chance the aircraft would remain intact, controlled or not controlled
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 6:59 pm

Many moons ago, I used to fly C130s in a war zone. Since there were people shooting at us, we practised ditching (in a sim). It's fiendishly difficult to pull off moderately successfully, even in the C130 which has the advantage of being a high winged aircraft. There have been very, very few successful ditchings of transport-sized aircraft. The swell conditions in the SIO at the time MH370 ran out of fuel would have been beyond the capabilities of Sunderland / Shorts flying boats, which are designed to land on water.
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 79

Sun May 10, 2015 7:58 pm

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 179):

Maybe he thought that if there's a ping at time X, then the next hourly ping is an hour away, and you should be able to fly at least 700 km during that, even against wind or other conditions. That is of course flawed thinking, assuming the analysis of the reasons that the partial ping might be generated are valid.

Yes, from the Factual Report (p. 52)

Quote:
6th handshake initiated by ground station 0010 UTC
7th handshake – log-on initiated by the aircraft 0019 UTC
Aircraft did not respond to ‘handshake’ from Satellite Earth Ground Station 0115 UTC

He probably has looked at this information only and thinks that the plane could have flown until 0115 UTC. However, the plane would have run out of fuel already around 0019 UTC, and the 7th handshake is consistent with fuel exhaustion causing a re-boot of the SATCOM system.

[Edited 2015-05-10 13:38:42]
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 8:17 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 184):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 183):

Maybe he thought that if there's a ping at time X, then the next hourly ping is an hour away, and you should be able to fly at least 700 km during that, even against wind or other conditions. That is of course flawed thinking, assuming the analysis of the reasons that the partial ping might be generated are valid.

Yes, from the Factual Report (p. 52)

Not me.
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 79

Sun May 10, 2015 8:39 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 185):
Not me.

Edited... this platform is buggy, it should be upgraded to Tapatalk or something similar.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 9:34 pm

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 180):
Plus the sea would have to be calm.

The sea is never calm in the areas where they are searching.
The calmest I have seen for myself and have heard tales about from experienced sailors is a swell of about two to three metres with hardly any windwaves. That was almost due south of Tasmania.
In more than twenty five years, that was the only time and, indeed, the calm before the storm ....

Edit:
It was so calm and no wind, the albatrosses were sitting on the water, sleeping, because they couldn't get airborne.
Big birds like that need good winds and reasonable sized waves to lift off from the edge of a wave; it's quite a sight when they do it so easily.

[Edited 2015-05-10 14:43:05]
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 9:58 pm

That plane landed somewhere... its imposible that debris have not been found after 14 months.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Sun May 10, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 183):
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 187):

Agreed, part of the procedure from 777 manuals:



I can't see a way it would remain remotely intact.

Best Regards
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon May 11, 2015 1:15 am

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 180):
I don't believe even with the proper ditching procedures done to perfection it would remain mostly intact and sink. Apart from timing the impact perfectly which would be unreasonably hard all it would take is the tiniest improper contact for it to probably break apart. Plus the sea would have to be calm.

You can believe whatever you like.

Ditching procedures (which you cite in a later post) exist for several reasons, one being that planes like the 777 are built strong enough to begin with to survive a successful ditching intact enough so that people who are still alive can escape.

This is what an experienced 777 driver and valued member of this site had to say on that matter in the last thread:


Quoting 7BOEING7 in the previous thread when asked:

Quoting awthompson (Reply 73):
Can anyone answer whether a 777 can still be flown in some form of controlled dive after fuel exhaustion?

Answer:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 74):
Easily, between the battery, the RAT and the windmilling engines there's enough electrical/hydraulic power generated to do a descent and a flare just prior to touchdown. Just like the A320 on the Hudson.

IIRC 7BOEING7 also stated somewhere that the ditching speed would have been somewhere just around 90 kts.

No body is suggesting that the engines, some control surfaces and many other less secure parts of the plane would not have broken off. Parts would have broken away from the plane for sure.

Having said that, if, like under the controlled ditching with a pilot at the controls scenario we were discussing and Mr Bailey was referring to, there is no way the plane would have impacted / broken up into millions of pieces like SwissAir 111 after an uncontrolled impact with the water.

IMHO an outcome like the Hudson River A320 would have been the best outcome, but I believe this would have been the worst outcome if an experienced pilot was at the helm during the ditching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvtYtvd5x60

The above ditching was done at over 175 knots and went wrong as one wing clipped the water first.

From wiki: "Except for the rear part of the airframe, the broken portions of the fuselage sank rapidly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopi..._Airlines_Flight_961#Crash_landing

At the end of the day, a successful ditching is possible even in the remote SIO with a bit of luck if everything goes right at that precise moment...

If the ditching procedures were followed, the plane was flying at about 90 kts and stayed level during impact, and if the swell was just right, then a successful ditching could have easily been pulled off well enough so that most of the plane remained intact or in large pieces that would sink anyway. The small pieces would either sink too or be approaching South America by now...

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 181):
How would this plane have landed in the water without possibly one engine out but the other running for a few minutes more and possibly no pilot control or likely autopilot in command ?

We are talking about a ditching like under the Mr Bailey scenario meaning somebody was at the controls.

If nobody was at the controls it would not have been a ditching. The end result would be more like what happened to SwissAir 111 or AF 447.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 182):
Without anyone manipulating the controls I doubt it would be a controlled glide, it would probably enter a spin early on.

I agree with that.

But if someone was manipulating the controls it would be completely different.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 182):
I personally don't believe there is much chance the aircraft would remain intact, controlled or not controlled

Addressed in my first reply.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 187):
The sea is never calm in the areas where they are searching.

From some of the footage shown on TV of the ships doing their thing in the search area the seas look calm enough to pull off a properly done ditching.

Who knows what the swell was like at that exact time.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 188):
That plane landed somewhere... its imposible that debris have not been found after 14 months.

It landed in the SIO. The debris that didn't sink are still en-route to the Strait of Magellan  
Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 189):
Agreed, part of the procedure from 777 manuals:
Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 189):
I can't see a way it would remain remotely intact.

Here you cite part of the 777 ditching procedures, straight from the 777 manual, then you state "I can't see a way it would remain remotely intact"...

Again, ditching procedures exist for several reasons, one being that a successful ditching is possible.



[Edited 2015-05-10 18:31:57]
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
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon May 11, 2015 4:34 am

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 182):

I personally don't believe there is much chance the aircraft would remain intact, controlled or not controlled

In 1978 a P-3 "successfully" ditched in heavy seas (cresting to 30 feet) in the North Pacific with the airplane largely intact at a ditching speed that would be close to if not greater than MH370 during a controlled ditching with both engines operable.
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon May 11, 2015 11:44 am

Perhaps I should have clarified myself a bit better.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 190):
Ditching procedures (which you cite in a later post) exist for several reasons, one being that planes like the 777 are built strong enough to begin with to survive a successful ditching intact enough so that people who are still alive can escape.

Ditching procedures exist because there may be a requirement you have to do them. Not because the aircraft is designed for them. They are designed to MINIMIZE the damage of the aircraft and MINIMIZE the risk of injury to its occupants. It is used as an absolute worst care scenario and if no other preferable options exist. Aircraft are not tested for them. The reason I put minimize in caps is because features are installed to minimize damage, but not to prevent it. For example some Airbus models have a ditching button that closes the outflow valve and various inlets. This seals the aircraft to improve its buoyancy but won't do much if the aircraft has large structural failure. You look at the QRH of any aircraft and it might suggest what to do in a ditching, its the best way to do it, but doesn't necessarily mean that the aircraft will remain intact if they are followed.

In that quote you yourself said intact enough, so you too think it would break up?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 190):
IIRC 7BOEING7 also stated somewhere that the ditching speed would have been somewhere just around 90 kts.

At that speed the RAT would be generating a lot less power

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 190):
Having said that, if, like under the controlled ditching with a pilot at the controls scenario we were discussing and Mr Bailey was referring to, there is no way the plane would have impacted / broken up into millions of pieces like SwissAir 111 after an uncontrolled impact with the water.

No it wouldn't, I didn't say that.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 190):
The above ditching was done at over 175 knots and went wrong as one wing clipped the water first.

In calm waters

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 190):
If the ditching procedures were followed, the plane was flying at about 90 kts and stayed level during impact, and if the swell was just right, then a successful ditching could have easily been pulled off well enough so that most of the plane remained intact or in large pieces that would sink anyway. The small pieces would either sink too or be approaching South America by now...

That's where the problem is, assuming the procedures were followed spot on, he would have to time his descent as well, not just the impact, as the aircraft does not have thrust. He can only rely on the ground effect and flare to keep him airborne. So he has to make sure that his flare and hold off coincide exactly with the waves. He can't cancel the flare and land if it opens up, because it will be too heavy, and he cant prolong the flare if there is swell just coming up underneath, as he will stall. The important bit is landing parallel to the swell at a time where it has just passed underneath you, ie at the receding face of the swell. Otherwise the wingtip will hit first which would probably cause a violent break up.

So what I meant by let me clarify. Given the expected conditions I don't believe it would have been a landing where the aircraft remains structurally sound as Mr Bailey believes it would.

Quoting what he said that you linked in your post:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 172):
A crash by a very large aircraft like the Boeing 777 would result in a huge amount of debris that would float for months and months. Even the life jackets still in their pouches normally stowed under the seats and seat cushions would float. So why, with the strong westerly winds the roaring forties north of Antarctica, has not even one item of debris washed up on the shores of Tasmania, the South Island of New Zealand or Chile. MH370 did not crash. It was ditched under control

For him to say that the life jackets and seat cushions should float and therefore be found and given that it hasn't, is implying that the cabin remained structurally intact which neither I nor you according to what you said believe. I am not saying it will break into millions of pieces, I am saying that it won't remain perfectly intact and sink in one piece (the cabin that is)

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 191):
In 1978 a P-3 "successfully" ditched in heavy seas (cresting to 30 feet) in the North Pacific with the airplane largely intact at a ditching speed that would be close to if not greater than MH370 during a controlled ditching with both engines operable.

How successful was it in regards to the air frame? Of course there are scenarios where it could work, I am not denying that, I just don't believe in this scenario it would remain close to perfectly intact. If Zaharie did take the aircraft, and didn't know about the hourly pings there is the question of would it make sense for him to do a controlled ditching? If he did that means he would have to sit there waiting for it to sink and for him to drown or suffocate. Wouldn't it make more sense for a quick high impact end? Just wondering out loud

Have a good week.
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon May 11, 2015 2:22 pm

MH 17 should give us the key as to what happened to MH 370. It should form an opposition like the two poles of the same battery.This is a more prudent (and down to earth) theory. Do not go to such "great lengths" that would please the secret agencies to read... That plane is down and could have crashed anywhere like Germanwings in such tiny pieces that it will never be found. Months ago,after Air Asia, I suspected that a fourth crash was imminent but I dared not say it, so as to have four of them to form a cross of oppositions.Somebody,more imaginative than me should take paper and pencil and put everything in place. Don't make me do it. And -please- don't tell me one more time that you believe in that Inmarsat Gospel to the letter because my poor logic will not stand it. Gospels do have their flaws,after all,you know!.....

[Edited 2015-05-11 07:26:34]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon May 11, 2015 7:51 pm

A question for those that think one of the pilots ditched the aircraft. What did he do after ditching the aircraft expertly?
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Mon May 11, 2015 11:07 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 194):
A question for those that think one of the pilots ditched the aircraft. What did he do after ditching the aircraft expertly?

Went down with the ship, like a good captain does.   
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue May 12, 2015 2:58 am

The media keep running with Bailey's scenario. This came out about 30 mins ago:


'Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: 'All pilots' believe there's no mystery'

http://www.msn.com/en-au/travel/news...ystery/ar-BBjDrP0?ocid=mailsignout

""""An experienced pilot has claimed that there is no real mystery behind the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 - and that "all pilots" believe it didn't crash.

Byron Bailey, who has 26,000 hours in the air under his belt, mostly with Emirates Airlines, says the captain of the flight is responsible for its disappearance, and that it was hijacked.

Bailey believes that the captain of the flight, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, carefully landed the plane on the water and let it sink to the bottom in one piece, where it still lies today.""""


Pretty dodgy reporting to say that "all pilots" believe that scenario...

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 192):
In that quote you yourself said intact enough, so you too think it would break up?

Of course. But I believe if it was ditched successfully it would have mostly broken up into large pieces that would have sunk anyway. Even the smaller items that would usually float might have eventually been hammered by swells by the time the search moved to that area and also gone under.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 192):
At that speed the RAT would be generating a lot less power

That's assuming it was ditched after fuel ran out. I would assume that an experienced Captain trying to pull off an open ocean ditching would want as much control as possible and thus attempt the ditching just before fuel exhaustion.

If the plane ditched before fuel ran out and was under power, would the plane still be able to send off that final ping after the ditching impact?

I'm starting to think that the final ping could have been around impact time if it was ditched - timed just before fuel exhaustion.

However, I don't know if the plane could have sent off that final ping after hitting the water???

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 192):
I am not saying it will break into millions of pieces, I am saying that it won't remain perfectly intact and sink in one piece (the cabin that is)

If Mr Bailey thinks it would remain perfectly intact then that is a weakness of his scenario because I don't think anybody believes that is possible.

I believe an outcome between the Hudson River A320 and the ditched Ethiopian 767 would have been the end result.

Quoting gzm (Reply 193):
Somebody,more imaginative than me should take paper and pencil and put everything in place. Don't make me do it.

Why don't you do what you propose? By the sounds of things you are quite 'imaginative'  
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 195):
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 194):A question for those that think one of the pilots ditched the aircraft. What did he do after ditching the aircraft expertly? Went down with the ship, like a good captain does.

  

He could have raided the good stuff from the galley cart to make it easier  
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 79

Tue May 12, 2015 4:01 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 196):
'Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: 'All pilots' believe there's no mystery'

I guess they've excluded a.net in arriving at this conclusion. The general chorus of pilots here has been to steer the conversation away from the one and only sensical scenario.

Considering, however, that this is in fact the most widely held pov of the pilot community, it is rather disgraceful that their extremely valued input vis a vis this scenario has been glaringly absent. Rather, what this thread has been the recipient of from said pilots amounts to virtually nothing constructive whatsoever.

Even mild exploration of pilot culpability was virtually non-existent (by pilots). So much for an earnest search for the truth.

The families deserved better from the very individuals that had the most potential to steer the conversation in the proper direction.
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue May 12, 2015 8:38 am

You make it sound like the captain was the Lord of Darkness. It is a little eerie. Well, I do not think I believe it. There is no serious motivation,either. Only a convenient theory many would feel comfortable with. Let's be more imaginative. Except,of course,if there are things we ignore. But as it is,it is lacking in something, isn't it?
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

RE: Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing KUL-PEK - Part 79

Tue May 12, 2015 11:36 am

The conclusions drawn by Byron Bailey in his Daily Telegraph article cannot be trusted.
Ergo, his theory of ditching MH370 cannot be trusted either.

For someone with 26,000 hours "under his belt", he is very loose with the fuel consumption figures of MH370; to the extent that either ...
Baily is right - and the Factual Information report is wrong; or else ...
The Factual Information is right - and Baily is wrong.
Which one is it?

If I understand this correctly, then ....
The Factual Information states that the aircraft had an endurance of 7 hours and 31 minutes, with the 49,100 kg of fuel it had on board.

If Baily is right, then, the aircraft would have had to have an extra 6,100 kg of fuel (by rough calculations).
This would kind of tally if the the 49,100 kg of fuel were pumped into the aircraft, on top of the remaining fuel.

But ... from various angles here on the thread we have heard, quite categorically, that this was not the case; in fact the aircraft had (only) the 49,100 kg of fuel in the tanks when it started the engines.
We have Kaiarahi's word on this:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 6):
But the Factual Information report states precisely how much fuel was on MH370. There is no combination of speed / altitude that would have kept it flying for 56 additional minutes. Period.

And as he also explains:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):
Endurance is the same no matter what air mass you're flying in. Distance travelled is not, but that's not the issue here.

In other words there could not have been extra fuel for the extra 50 minutes that Baily is talking about, which would in fact be another 56 minutes of flight.

Bailey's utterances in the Daily Telegraph can therefore not be trusted.

Furthermore, Baily reports in the Daily Telegraph that the villagers in the Maldives saw the aircraft at 08:00 AM where as the The Australian reports that the sighting was at 06:15 AM, both local times.
This is a substantial discrepancy and ought not be acceptable; in fact either of the two is misleading the public.
Who can we trust?

How do others on A.net feel about this?

Personally I reckon that both papers ought to be held responsible for their errors.
How does one go about that?
Over to you ....

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