oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:00 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 48):
The path to 1825 looks 99.99% intentional to me, but the path after that to the Southern Indian Ocean could be consistent with the result of a failed hi-jacking flight on auto-pilot, as well as one of the pilots taking the plane amongst other scenarios. But to suggest that there is 100% certainty that the Captain did it and there are no other possibilities such as a failed hi-jacking / accident borders on insane.

What truly borders on insane is your absurd contention of some 'failed' hijacking. It fits none of the facts and is so outlandish given what we know that I am flabbergasted you put this forth as a serious possibility. LOL.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
I could go on about why some 007's DID NOT steal M9MRO, and why it makes no sense to anyone living in reality (oh, that sounded harsh), but I suspect you well understand this already...

If 9M-MRO was hi-jacked and the attempt obviously failed then the hi-jackers would not have been "007's"  
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
Ah, I see. You're predicating this on the operative word 'failed'. Quite a flight path these 'failures' took, only to have their evil plans thwarted by the dynamic duo of Fariq and Z at 18:25.

Well it obviously wasn't a 'successful' hi-jacking  
Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 46):
However, the following three communications from MH370 neither appear to be spoken by the same person's voice nor by the voice of the First Officer:


'12:50:09 (MAS 370) Flight level three five zero, Malaysian three seven zero.'

'01:01:14 (MAS 370) Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero.'

'01:07:55 (MAS 370) Malaysian... three seven zero maintaining level three five zero.'

Those transmissions are some examples of the different voices.

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 48):
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
why it makes no sense to anyone living in reality (oh, that sounded harsh),

Were you not the member that was exposed as living a double reality posting under multiple user names? If so it is a bit ironic to use such language. Not that anybody would take you seriously anyway.

  

He was also sipadan which makes one wonder what reality he is living in  
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 45):
No red flags on manifest,
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 49):
Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 46):
'12:50:09 (MAS 370) Flight level three five zero, Malaysian three seven zero.'

'01:01:14 (MAS 370) Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero.'

'01:07:55 (MAS 370) Malaysian... three seven zero maintaining level three five zero.'


Between the ground communications spoken by the first officer and the above FL350 communications I also feel that it is possible that a third person might have jumped on the radio for whatever reason; a third person that should not have been there. A hi-jacking is a possibility.

The factual report identifies all of these transmissions as being from the PIC...Zaharie. Can we put this to rest?

The factual report also puts no 'red flags' on Zaharie, are you going to put your 'Zaharie is 100% guilty - case closed' scenario to rest? I didn't think so...
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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:19 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 50):
Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 48):
The path to 1825 looks 99.99% intentional to me, but the path after that to the Southern Indian Ocean could be consistent with the result of a failed hi-jacking flight on auto-pilot, as well as one of the pilots taking the plane amongst other scenarios. But to suggest that there is 100% certainty that the Captain did it and there are no other possibilities such as a failed hi-jacking / accident borders on insane.

What truly borders on insane is your absurd contention of some 'failed' hijacking. It fits none of the facts and is so outlandish given what we know that I am flabbergasted you put this forth as a serious possibility. LOL.

FlyDeltaJetsATL is not the only member who still seems to have an open mind and still considers other possibilities.

Several others including myself have not ruled out a possible failed hi-jacking as well as other possible scenarios.

Why are you even still here if such talk makes you 'flabbergasted'?

You and one other have obviously made up your minds what happened so I don't see why you need to hang around and attempt to dish out pathetic insults. If your mind is closed - move on. If you think you know 100% what happened - move on. Just deal with it that others still have an open mind and are willing to discuss different scenarios...  

[Edited 2015-04-09 18:20:21]
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
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:20 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 51):
The factual report also puts no 'red flags' on Zaharie, are you going to put your 'Zaharie is 100% guilty - case closed' scenario to rest? I didn't think so...

The way I read it more of there is no information on either pilot to exonerate or implicate them. If malicious it could have been either of them or another person(s) who somehow got in there. (ATC radio is transmitted in the clear after all and listening in for the hand off would be easy if your another crew/pax with a DVB-T usb stick and a phone)

I don't think they ever reported getting court ordered information requests on the crew or pax of interest as Google/Microsoft/... would have a lot of information (search history in particular).

[Edited 2015-04-09 18:26:12]
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:57 am

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 48):
and if the pilots had a Smith & Wesson against the side of their head

That probably should have read:
... a 3D printed Smith & Wesson ...
In this day and age anything is possible.
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:04 am

Wikipedia's entry on MH370 is interesting and it appears that the investigator's prevailing theory is still some kind of even followed by hypoxia and incapictation. The strange movements of the plane to double back are certainly odd but I think it more likely that they tried to do a 180 while they were hypoxic and the autopilot sent them soutwest into no man's land.

Based on the Satellite pings, it's looks like the plane was gliding at some point. When the engines shut down from fuel cut off,power was cut but when the RAT deployed they got power and something sent a signal. I just don't see a suicidal or hijacker being at the controls. It looks like a un-commanded descent into the ocean.

Like Germanwings proved, if you want to kill yourself and your passengers why wait.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:06 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 54):
That probably should have read:
... a 3D printed Smith & Wesson ...
In this day and age anything is possible.

3D printed non-metallic guns are probably more like playing Russian roulette with a explosive misfire tool.

http://youtu.be/ZL7y3YNUbiY

Plastics + Gunpowder + cheap 3d printing induced defects not a good combination. (ABS one does perform better, as it does not immediately explode)

You can make a one shot shotgun much easier without 3d printing. (Pipes in particular, ABS pipe would probably do)

[Edited 2015-04-09 20:10:42]
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:10 am

Quoting cpqi (Reply 41):
It comes back to the old question on this issue. Is it really really possible to make a plane of this size completely disappear in this way.

It's not impossible. There would have been other cleaner methods to make the airplane disappear into oblivion, and similar methods.

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 43):
It's not just the loss of mode S, if I'm reading the timeline correctly. The first drop off was from the HCM radar 3 seconds before that, and both SSR and ADS-B were lost at the same time (given that ADS-B could have been riding on mode S).

I take SSR to mean the same as "secondary radar position symbol" and "radar position symbol". If that's correct, then it would seem that there was only one "event" and the three radar centers all saw it differently and/or processed it differently over the span of 40 seconds. Or, there were two events, the first causing mode S to drop from the KL radar and SSR and ADS-B to drop from HCM radar, and the second causing the loss of the transponder symbol on KL and Thai radar.

This could have been due to a difference in the time source used by the different ATCs, the different times when the different radars would sweep over the aircraft, etc.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 44):
That is why I consider the failed hi-jack scenario one of the more likely scenarios.

Failed hijack scenario was one of the early suspected causes, which quickly got overwhelmed by the "Captain did it" crowd. Failed hijack scenario would have exposed major weaknesses in the airport security, which would have been a major national embarrassment. I wouldn't be surprised that if in the end the "Captain did it" was proven untrue, that it was devised to divert flak away from the airport security early in the days after the event. Some of the regional TVs and media were after it. Heck, I even got asked. (My reply was, "am not an airport security expert when it comes to other countries."    )

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 44):
The first part of my sentence that you quoted asked: "has abybody else ever felt that there just might have been more than 2 people in the cockpit"

If there was an attempted hi-jacking before IGARI and the hi-jackers knew their stuff and wanted to maintain normal radio contact until IGARI then who knows what could have happened, especially if the crew refused to answer one or two transmissions until they were forced...

If it was an attempted hijacking, the 3 "Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero" calls may have been an attempt to raise alarm about this in an overly subtle manner (which if it was, it failed completely in that no one at the time thought something was wrong).

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 46):
During the ground communications, there is the young voice of the First Officer.

However, the following three communications from MH370 neither appear to be spoken by the same person's voice nor by the voice of the First Officer:

If the crew decided that the First Officer would be the pilot flying, on the ground the captain drives the aircraft while First Officer handles the radios. On take off the first officer would take the controls and the monitors the radios, and after airborne first officer continues as pilot flying and captain monitor the radios. This would continue until landing is complete when the captain would drive again and the first officer handles radios.

Quoting FlyDeltaJetsATL (Reply 48):
Hi-jackers would not squawk 7500 and if the pilots had a Smith & Wesson against the side of their head neither would they.

If it was a Smith & Wesson, again, it would be a national embarrassment as the main gateway had a severe security breach and since the plane disappeared without a trace, let's save face by trying to blame the captain instead.  
Nah, it doesn't have to be a handgun... but yeah...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:24 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 57):
This could have been due to a difference in the time source used by the different ATCs, the different times when the different radars would sweep over the aircraft, etc.

Fair enough. The report did characterise it as "at about the same time", so maybe 40 seconds is within the normal margin of error.

Still, you have two separate and different reports. HCM has SSR (also described in the transcript as "radar ident") and ADS-B disappearing simultaneously, while KL puts the loss of the mode S indicator and the last recorded radar position symbol 37 seconds apart. Either the two stations processed the same transmission(s) much differently, or they were looking at different transmission sources.

If we're assuming that reported times do not correlate exactly, then the right-then-left turn reported by military radar could have been happening while the last transponder signals were being received. Could a steep turn result in different stations seeing different transponders at different times?
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:58 am

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 58):
Still, you have two separate and different reports. HCM has SSR (also described in the transcript as "radar ident") and ADS-B disappearing simultaneously, while KL puts the loss of the mode S indicator and the last recorded radar position symbol 37 seconds apart. Either the two stations processed the same transmission(s) much differently, or they were looking at different transmission sources.

If we're assuming that reported times do not correlate exactly, then the right-then-left turn reported by military radar could have been happening while the last transponder signals were being received. Could a steep turn result in different stations seeing different transponders at different times?

The way I read the Factual Information, there are two separate events 37 seconds apart (p. 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].

The disappearance of the radar position symbol of MH370 was captured by the KL ATCC radar at time 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT].

I don't think that the 37 second interval can be explained by a steep turn or any processing delay in different ATC radar installations. It appears as if for some reason Mode S was disabled 37 seconds earlier than the transponder was completely disabled. I have not found a source which would explain in which situations Mode S is disabled in this specific transponder (Bendix/King TRA-67A Mode S transponder), but I assume losing all flight parameters might result in that (there would be only a 4-digit ident code to transmit and no position or altitude information to transmit). And this all the time that the transponder was "operating satisfactorily".
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:51 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 51):
He was also sipadan which makes one wonder what reality he is living in
[quote=mandala499,reply=57]If it was an attempted hijacking, the 3 "Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero" calls may have been an attempt to raise alarm about this in an overly subtle manner (which if it was, it failed completely in that no one at the time thought something was wrong).

There weren't 3 'maintaining FL350' transmissions. Just two. Let us strive for accuracy before we post. Thanks.   
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:57 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 60):
There weren't 3 'maintaining FL350' transmissions. Just two.

Yeah... 2, 3, or 10.. don't matter...   
If that was an attempt to raise alarm... it failed anyway! NEXT!
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 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 6:38 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 61):
Yeah... 2, 3, or 10.. don't matter...   
If that was an attempt to raise alarm... it failed anyway! NEXT!

Actually, it does matter. These transmissions were made by Zaharie. The redundant transmission was made at 1:07:55 by Zaharie, per the factual report.

So if one presumes that Zaharie commandeered the a/c, then this transmission takes on added significance...it can't (or shouldn't) just be viewed as some innocuous anomaly in light of what was to take place a mere 11 minutes later.

Let us not be so quick to dismiss it, nor frame it as an attempt to raise an alarm (for we know for certain, failed hijacking aside, that this it was not).
 
LH526
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2000 2:23 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:42 am

Given the fact that scientists can calculate maritime currents, shouldn't have floating debris washed ashore somewhere along the coasts of southeast asia, india or africa? And if no debris will ever be washed ashore on any of these coastlines in the next years, wouldn't that gove proof to the fact that the plane has indeed crashed on hard soil / land?
Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:32 am

Quoting lh526 (Reply 63):

Based on my understanding if the aircraft crashed somewhere near the current search area any debris would have ended up somewhere around Antarctica. Also if the aircraft was hijacked by a pilot there's a possibility it could have been brought down in a controlled ditch, something that wouldn't leave too much debris.
"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 79

Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting pvjin (Reply 64):
[...] any debris would have ended up somewhere around Antarctica.

Almost certainly no chance; the circumpolar currents would prevent that and, most likely, push it north again.
On one trip, on the RSV Aurora Australis, fairly big icebergs, two, three kilometres long, could be seen as far north as 50 deg S, almost due south of Adelaide.
Things tend to drift northerly from Antarctica.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:25 am

Quoting lh526 (Reply 63):
And if no debris will ever be washed ashore on any of these coastlines in the next years, wouldn't that gove proof to the fact that the plane has indeed crashed on hard soil / land?

No, it would not prove anything. Just google "garbage patch".
And then, something might be washed ashore but never found or identified as being from MH370. These shores are for a large part very sparsely populated, and the pieces would be small without any identification on them.
But if it indeed crashed over land, the wreckage will be found by pure chance at some point in time.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 27):

On the strength of your replies, I was going to contact the 'The Weekend Australian', regarding their article on MH370.
This is because, from what you are saying, MH370 could no longer have been in the air over the Maldives, or anywhere, at 06:15 local (09:15 MYT). If that is true, then the article should have unambiguously stated that.
On the other hand, it could mean that either of these is possible ...
the paper may be in possession of different fuel figures; or ....
it may have other, additional information not otherwise publicly available.
Or else it is simply a sloppy article.
(I can guess what many A.netters will say; but let's give them the benefit of the doubt because they are no dills either.)

When I began to draft an e-mail, I thought that I better double-check.
On page 1 of the Factual Information Report I noticed this statement, and I quote:
"The Captain ordered 49,100 kilograms (kg) of fuel for the flight that gave an endurance of 07 hours and 31 minutes including reserves. The planned flight duration was 05 hours and 34 minutes."
End of quote.

In Table 1.9 A of the Factual Information it also lists fuel-remaining figures for the first stages of the flight, very neatly.

Here is my question ...
Are the listed Total Remaining Fuel Weight (TOTFW) kg figures calculated from the 49,100 kg of fuel the Captain ordered?
Or ...
Are those figures based on read-outs from the aircraft's tank content measuring equipment, dare I say it, from the fuel gauges.

No doubt, when the 49,100 kg of fuel were taken on board, there was still some fuel in the tanks, however much that may have been. If the TOTFW is then calculated, automatically I presume, form the known 49,100 kg, then, the previous remaining fuel is not considered. Table 1.9 A seems to suggest that this is the case.

That would mean, the total fuel endurance would be higher, by however much fuel there was on board prior to taking on the new 49,100 kg.

If they were substantial quantities, say 1,000, 2,000 or as much as 5,000 kg, they would equally substantial prolong the fuel endurance. That in turn would mean that there is a possibility, after all, for MH370 to have over-flown that Maldives island.

The 'The Weekend Australian' would then have been justified to create the impression or hint at it that the islanders did in fact see MH370. So, ultimately, before I write to them, I need to be sure ....
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:58 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 67):
Here is my question ...
Are the listed Total Remaining Fuel Weight (TOTFW) kg figures calculated from the 49,100 kg of fuel the Captain ordered?
Or ...
Are those figures based on read-outs from the aircraft's tank content measuring equipment, dare I say it, from the fuel gauges.

Those figures are based on read-outs from the aircraft's tank content measuring equipment and transmitted over ACARS to ground station.
 
motif1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:31 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:01 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 67):
No doubt, when the 49,100 kg of fuel were taken on board, there was still some fuel in the tanks, however much that may have been. If the TOTFW is then calculated, automatically I presume, form the known 49,100 kg, then, the previous remaining fuel is not considered. Table 1.9 A seems to suggest that this is the case.

That would mean, the total fuel endurance would be higher, by however much fuel there was on board prior to taking on the new 49,100 kg.

From the report:

Quote:

1.6.5 Fuel
The aircraft used Jet A-1 fuel. Following the previous flight, as per records in the Transit
Check and Fuel Log, the total remaining fuel before refuelling as per the flight deck
indication was 8,200 kg (Left Tank was 3,700 kg and Right Tank was 4,500 kg). Total
departure fuel after refuelling was 49,700 kg (Left Tank was 24,900 kg and Right Tank was
24,800 kg) as indicated in the flight deck.
The fuel weight on board corresponded to a planned trip-fuel of 37,200 kg. Based on MH370
ATC flight plan dated 07 March 2014, the take-off fuel recorded was 49,100 kg. The
investigation estimated that the aircraft would have had 41,500 kg fuel remaining after 41
minutes flying from KLIA to IGARI.
Fuel burn and endurance will be discussed in the Final Report.
The last position report transmitted via ACARS at 1707:29 UTC, 07 March 2014 [0107:29
MYT, 08 March 2014] recorded remaining fuel of 43, 800 kg at 35,004 ft. altitude.
Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:39 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 59):
I don't think that the 37 second interval can be explained by a steep turn or any processing delay in different ATC radar installations. It appears as if for some reason Mode S was disabled 37 seconds earlier than the transponder was completely disabled. I have not found a source which would explain in which situations Mode S is disabled in this specific transponder (Bendix/King TRA-67A Mode S transponder), but I assume losing all flight parameters might result in that (there would be only a 4-digit ident code to transmit and no position or altitude information to transmit). And this all the time that the transponder was "operating satisfactorily".

HCM reported losing both SSR (also described as "radar ident") and ADS-B at the same time, 3 seconds before mode S dropped off in KL and 40 seconds before they lost the signal altogether. Even if you assume that HCM and KL time stamps don't correlate exactly, the two stations either saw it differently or saw different things. HCM lost everything all at once, KL lost it over 37 seconds.

If you take the "operating satisfactorily" statement at face value, the simplest explanation is that what was recorded was a function of the way two different ATC systems process data. The report doesn't address the ATC equipment, except to describe it in general terms, so I wouldn't rule out more complicated explanations. But the time gaps might be due to what was happening on the ground, and not on the aircraft.

[Edited 2015-04-10 08:40:11]
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 5:55 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 59):
I have not found a source which would explain in which situations Mode S is disabled in this specific transponder (Bendix/King TRA-67A Mode S transponder), but I assume losing all flight parameters might result in that (there would be only a 4-digit ident code to transmit and no position or altitude information to transmit).

Somehow i don't believe a simple loss of data would shut down the transponder. There is still the identification to transmit, and the data source may come back later.
A loss of the power source of the transponder would shut it down, obviously - although this might take a few seconds to shut it down completely. And since the divergence is between 2 different stations on the ground, it may be due to some factor on the ground, not involving the plane at all.
 
bradmovie
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:00 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:27 pm

Since the issue of failed hijacking was brought up recently, along with the idea of an additional voice in the cockpit, I would be curious to explore again what airline pilots think of these two transmissions:

"01:01:14 (MAS 370) Malaysian three seven zero, maintaining level three five zero."

"01:07:55 (MAS 370) Malaysian... three seven zero maintaining level three five zero."

I am only a private pilot but have always been curious about these two radio calls. It is certainly not necessary for pilots to keep reporting in once established on an airway in cruise, is it? I have never heard such transmissions except when changing frequencies, nor was I ever taught to make such calls. Very early on someone contemplated that this might be a "reminder" to ATC that they were waiting for a higher altitude -- had they in fact requested that more than once already?

If any commercial pilots could comment on the nature of these two transmissions I would appreciate it. I always thought the wording on them was strange. Is it possible that if these are indeed unusual transmissions, that might be a way to buy a little time if someone less experienced is trying to take over the cockpit...?

Thanks for any responses.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:05 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 68):
Quoting motif1 (Reply 69):

Thank you for that information.
The Chief Engineer of an ocean going vessel might ".. order .." xxxx tons of fuel. In that situation it is an order to the fuel company to pump (add) that quantity into the ship's tanks, regardless of prior quantities remaining.

In aviation language, this seems to be altogether different ....
If "the Captain ordered 49,100 kg for the flight ...", that was not a purchase-order to the fuel company.
Instead it was an instruction to all concerned with the preparations of the flight, that he wanted to take off with that fuel quantity on board, in effect, at the moment when the wheels left the ground.

The first line in the ACARS report seems to confirm this when it reads (page 46 in the Factual Information report) that at 1641:43 (i.e. at take-off) the TOTFW was 49,200 kg, the fuel in the tanks.

Is that how we should understand this?
 
mark2fly1034
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:38 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:16 pm

I just came back from Southeast Asia and one of my flights was a night flight from BKK-SIN and I could not help but notice how many ships there were along the whole flight and how close (maybe 1 every mile or so in all directions at all times) there really were. Just seemed weird to me.
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

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

Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:48 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 73):
he wanted to take off with that fuel quantity on board, in effect, at the moment when the wheels left the ground.

No. It's an instruction to start engines with that quantity of fuel. Taxi fuel (not insignificant) before take-off is included in the calculation.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:04 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 57):
Failed hijack scenario would have exposed major weaknesses in the airport security, which would have been a major national embarrassment. I wouldn't be surprised that if in the end the "Captain did it" was proven untrue, that it was devised to divert flak away from the airport security early in the days after the event.

Given how important 'face' is in that part of the world that makes a lot of sense.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 62):
The redundant transmission was made at 1:07:55 by Zaharie, per the factual report.

So if one presumes that Zaharie commandeered the a/c, then this transmission takes on added significance...it can't (or shouldn't) just be viewed as some innocuous anomaly in light of what was to take place a mere 11 minutes later.

It also "can't (or shouldn't) just be viewed" as a cunning attempt by the rogue Captain to bring the ATC handoff time forward to get more time in no mans land before the expected check-in with Vietnamese ATC.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 67):
On the strength of your replies, I was going to contact the 'The Weekend Australian', regarding their article on MH370.
This is because, from what you are saying, MH370 could no longer have been in the air over the Maldives, or anywhere, at 06:15 local (09:15 MYT). If that is true, then the article should have unambiguously stated that.
On the other hand, it could mean that either of these is possible ...
the paper may be in possession of different fuel figures; or ....
it may have other, additional information not otherwise publicly available.
Or else it is simply a sloppy article.
(I can guess what many A.netters will say; but let's give them the benefit of the doubt because they are no dills either.)

FWIW 'The Weekend Australian' is also a business.

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 72):
Very early on someone contemplated that this might be a "reminder" to ATC that they were waiting for a higher altitude -- had they in fact requested that more than once already?

If they wanted a higher altitude they could have just asked / requested it.
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
 
aerodog
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:48 am

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:13 am

I for one appreciate the civil and thoughtful discussion attached to this thread. A big improvement over past threads.
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:06 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 76):
It also "can't (or shouldn't) just be viewed" as a cunning attempt by the rogue Captain to bring the ATC handoff time forward to get more time in no mans land before the expected check-in with Vietnamese ATC.

I said IF one subscribes to Zaharie being the guilty actor, THEN the transmission takes on added significance. This is pretty straight forward logic..

You point out one of many possible reasons as to why Zaharie perhaps felt this transmission was warranted.

Since you have stated you believe Zaharie still to be your #1 theory, how about thinking about the transmission with the Z assumption in place. Your ideas could be valuable, insightful, and, yes, welcome, IMHO.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:29 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 78):
Since you have stated you believe Zaharie still to be your #1 theory

  

Z acting alone is still IMO the most likely scenario.

A few threads ago, when quite a few of us gave our own 'odds' as to the likelihood of the various scenarios we still consider possible, I believe I gave 86% to the 'Captain did it' scenario  
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 78):
You point out one of many possible reasons as to why Zaharie perhaps felt this transmission was warranted.

As I am open to, and still consider, several different scenarios, IMO the redundant 'maintaining FL350' transmission could have been made for a number of reasons. Below are just some:

1) Z wanted a higher altitude to get better fuel economy because he was a company man but he didn't want to ask for FL350 so he gave a 'hint' to ATC instead. Z is innocent under this reason.

2) Z wanted a higher altitude to get better fuel economy because he lost it and was going to take the plane as far away from land as he could but he didn't want to ask for FL350 so he gave a 'hint' to ATC instead. Z is guilty under this reason.

3) Z was just tired, careless, or forgetful at that time of the night (especially after a long day in which some specific news might have been on his mind) and made a simple mistake as he was a human. Z is innocent under this reason.

4) Z, as well as F, were both suffering from early stages of hypoxia and he made a mistake because his cognitive functioning / mental abilities were slowly declining. Z is innocent under this reason.

There are many other possibilities / reasons but just because I believe that the 'Captain did it' scenario is the most likely scenario (or least unlikely scenario) IMO, it does not automatically follow that I will only look for reasons that fit in with my scenario.
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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:24 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 79):
There are many other possibilities / reasons but just because I believe that the 'Captain did it' scenario is the most likely scenario (or least unlikely scenario) IMO, it does not automatically follow that I will only look for reasons that fit in with my scenario.

Well, what I was hoping for was that you would have been willing to engage in an exercise in which the possible reasons for the redundant transmission were derived from ONLY a Z intentional act.

While I understand that you entertain other possibilities, it is still a worthwhile exercise to ponder this transmission exclusively from the POV of what your most reasonable and probable scenario is, no?

I am truly interested in your thoughts on the matter. Since the a/c was to virtually disappear 11 minutes later, It is my belief that this particular transmission need be understood (insomuch as this is possible). Putting oneself in Z's shoes (with the assumption of guilt for the sake of the exercise) is how to best arrive at a likely explanation.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting little anomaly as it is the last relay to KLATCC before the incomplete read back (frequency omission) and failure to make contact with HCM.
 
yenne09
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:02 am

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:24 am

Parry: the CIA does not share data about MH17, because it is in Russia’s favor.

According to Robert Parry, it seems that CIA has information linking the MH17 crash to someone else than Russia.

http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/4/10/3056/

There is also evidence that the ukrainian pilot who shut down the MH17 flights, has been found. His name is
Vladislav Voloshin and he told : “The Plane Was In the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/meet-th...ng-place-at-the-wrong-time/5421363
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:49 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 80):
Well, what I was hoping for was that you would have been willing to engage in an exercise in which the possible reasons for the redundant transmission were derived from ONLY a Z intentional act.

There are none.
In case of evil intentions, he would keep a very low profile and be very careful not to raise any eyebrows.

which also kills this:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 79):
2) Z wanted a higher altitude to get better fuel economy because he lost it and was going to take the plane as far away from land as he could but he didn't want to ask for FL350 so he gave a 'hint' to ATC instead. Z is guilty under this reason.

In this case, he would not worry to much about fuel economy, knowing that within minutes he would be off the map anyway.
 
Kevil
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:02 pm

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:12 pm

On the page 29 of the Factual Information is the Figure 1.1F - Primary Radar Targets (track), plotted by AAT using EVA & Plotter 01.01-27 (From Take-off). On the upper supposed return red route with multiple gaps are marked four targets (the numbers are hardly to read and couldn't be correct as the image is blurred) Figure 1.1F :

P1738
17:30:37:02
0476

P1793
17:30:56:90
0501

P1605
17:41:01:62
0694

P1812
17:51:44:38
0609

3th value (row) e.g. 0476 is the speed of the target in knots. The maximum speed of the Boeing 777-200ER is 512 knots. Even when I add the tail wind speed 15-20 knots the speed of two last targets, 0694 and 0609 knots, is well beyond the maximum speed of the aircraft. That's why I do not think the supposed return red route with multiple gaps can represent the flight of MH370.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:38 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 80):
Well, what I was hoping for was that you would have been willing to engage in an exercise in which the possible reasons for the redundant transmission were derived from ONLY a Z intentional act.

While I understand that you entertain other possibilities, it is still a worthwhile exercise to ponder this transmission exclusively from the POV of what your most reasonable and probable scenario is, no?

I am truly interested in your thoughts on the matter. Since the a/c was to virtually disappear 11 minutes later, It is my belief that this particular transmission need be understood (insomuch as this is possible). Putting oneself in Z's shoes (with the assumption of guilt for the sake of the exercise) is how to best arrive at a likely explanation.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting little anomaly as it is the last relay to KLATCC before the incomplete read back (frequency omission) and failure to make contact with HCM.

You know, you could participate in the same exercise that you hoped I "would have been willing to engage in" and list "the possible reasons for the redundant transmission" under a "ONLY a Z intentional act" scenario.

Here is another possible reason under the 'Z did it' scenario:

Z just made a mistake, a 'human error', because he was under the pump and had a lot on his mind given that he knew he was just minutes away from the beginning of the end.

Guilty or not, there might be nothing more to the redundant transmission than a simple mistake. Similarly, guilty or not, there could be more to the redundant transmission than a simple mistake. I do think it is still interesting nonetheless.
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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 84):
You know, you could participate in the same exercise that you hoped I "would have been willing to engage in" and list "the possible reasons for the redundant transmission" under a "ONLY a Z intentional act" scenario.

I have contemplated human error also, but I doubt this is the case. Despite what was about to go down (or already was?), I really think it unlikely he would have forgotten about the previous FL350 transmission. But it is a possibility.

Here are some other ideas...just food for thought:

He was curious to the reaction of Fariq at his 'mistake'. Who knows why.

He was planning to deviate earlier than hand off and wanted KLATC to have heard from him at a time closer to the deviation. Who knows why. Maybe in his mind it would buy more time.

A ploy to get Fariq out of the cockpit. "oh that's right, I already confirmed FL350. Man, I need a coffee".

Seeing if he got a prompt response from KLATC, or a query. Gauging the reaction, basically. Who knows why.

Was preparing, or already had, shut down ACARS or some other system.

Knew that the world would be going over these transmissions with a fine tooth comb. Wanted it to appear or give credibility to hypoxia scenarios (apparently this worked well if that was the intention).

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 82):
There are none.
In case of evil intentions, he would keep a very low profile and be very careful not to raise any eyebrows.

Cased closed then. LOL.

[Edited 2015-04-11 16:46:18]
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:39 am

The Sunday Mail, a Sunday issue of the Queensland 'Courier Mail', alerted its readers to a substantial discrepancy in the Gross Weight figures as stated in the Factual Information report.

The report lists the weight at 1641:43 as 492,520 kg, when that should have read pounds (about 223,403 kg).
"Judith Zielke, chief co-ordinator with the Joint Agency Coordination Centre in Canberra, has confirmed an error occurred in relation to the kilograms, which should have read 'pounds'." Ms Zielke said.
"It has been corrected."

A woman, who contacted the paper also pointed out ... ' .. there was also a seat "B" which did not actually exist, and discrepancies in the timing of voice recordings taken from the flight.'
The paper goes on to quote her ...
"I am just concerned about what else might be incorrect in official reports on this matter," she said.

Does this mean, then, if the weight figures are misnamed and other things are questioned to be correct, there is a possibility that the fuel figures, as stated, are also incorrect?

We don't really know, do we ....
 
morsecoder
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:42 am

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting Kevil (Reply 83):
the speed of two last targets, 0694 and 0609 knots, is well beyond the maximum speed of the aircraft.

You're right, it's hard to read. But I think those last two numbers are 0594 and 0609.
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:02 am

In regard to the sighting in the Maldives, I have written to the ‘The Weekend Australian’ (WA) and asked them for clarification. This is in response to an article that the newspaper published on April 4-5.
The article gives the impression that an airliner sighted over a Maldives island may have been MH370, or is strongly hinting at it.

The main points I’ve raised are these:
- How could the islanders have seen MH370 and how could the WA create the impression (in the article) that they did.
This, when such a sighting was impossible due to the limited fuel endurance of MH370.
- For that article, did the WA research MH370's fuel endurance.
- If the villagers saw an airliner that morning, and if it can’t have been MH370, what other airliner of which airline could it have been.
- How can the contradiction be explained that the islanders saw an airliner that morning and the authorities denied there were any such aircraft movements.
- Did the WA investigate this discrepancy.
- If the villagers definitely saw an airliner, possibly MH370, does the WA consider it possible that data in the Factual Information Report may be incorrect. Would the WA have information to that effect.
- If the villagers saw an airliner, did they have the impression that it was flown ‘to-be-seen’.
In other words, was it flown deliberately at low altitude.
- Were there signs, during the sighting, that the aircraft may have been in distress.
- Has the WA, or the villagers, thoughts on it whether we are dealing with other scenarios.

As the saying goes, I won’t hold my breath until I get a reply.
And even if I do get one, it probably won’t contain much information of real interest.
There you have it ....
 
Kevil
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:02 pm

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:19 am

Quoting morsecoder (Reply 87):
Quoting Kevil (Reply 83):
the speed of two last targets, 0694 and 0609 knots, is well beyond the maximum speed of the aircraft.

You're right, it's hard to read. But I think those last two numbers are 0594 and 0609.

If you zoom the original picture from the Factual Information, use High Pass filter on value in knots in Photoshop and compare the first digit with another digit 6 and 5 you will notice the first digit match the number 6.

I would expect that all data in Factual Information should be prepared well including pictures so anybody can read values without problems.
 
Starglider
Posts: 659
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 12:37 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 79):
There are many other possibilities / reasons

One possibility could have been that something drew his / their attention between the two transmissions and needed more than minor actions. Something that took minutes rather than seconds to sort out, perhaps the beginning of problems which he thought were rectified before the second transmission. Perhaps the nature of the distraction had made him doubt if he did the first transmission to confirm maintaining FL 350.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 88):
- If the villagers saw an airliner that morning, and if it can’t have been MH370, what other airliner of which airline could it have been.

As mentioned several posts back, when questioning if it was not MH370 that the villagers saw, what aircraft could have been in the neighborhood? Of several possibilities one, a Fits Air DC-8-63 4R-EXJ could have been a possibility if it was still in operation at that time. Not that it was the airplane actually observed but it can now be confirmed it was at that time, and apparently still is in operation. First link below deals with a ramp incident involving 4R-EXJ in April 2014. The second link is a list op DC-8's with on top of the list those still in service and it includes 4R-EXJ. Latest list update was apparently on April 6, 2015.

http://www.transport.go.ke/downloads/5Y-UAE%204R%20EXJ.pdf

http://www.aviation-friends-cologne..../listings/douglas-dc8-listing.html
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting Starglider (Reply 90):
Of several possibilities one, a Fits Air DC-8-63 4R-EXJ could have been a possibility if it was still in operation at that time.

It's all very good to know that airlines have aircraft but that in itself does not tell us whether that DC-8 flew over that Maldives island on that fateful day.
The description by the islanders, the way it's reported, seems to suggest a bigger aircraft than the FitsAir DC-8. What more, the islanders describe clearly that they could see the doors.
Doors cannot be clearly seen on that DC-8.
We still haven't even got over the first hurdle ....
The islanders report they have seen a big aircraft flying low; and the police accepts their story.
But the Maldives Defence Force says there were no such aircraft movements.
On top of that we have a newspaper in Australia giving the impression that the sighting either was or could have been MH370.
So who is right, which part of the story is right, can we believe anything or should we believe nothing ..??
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:44 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 91):
The description by the islanders, the way it's reported, seems to suggest a bigger aircraft than the FitsAir DC-8. What more, the islanders describe clearly that they could see the doors.
Doors cannot be clearly seen on that DC-8.

They can be seen very clearly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ll_Douglas_DC-8-62H_Fitzgerald.jpg
Still, the most visible difference between a 777 and a DC 8 is the number of engines.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 92):

actually, here the doors are not so easily visible on a MAS 777:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_Boeing_777-2H6ER_Wedelstaedt.jpg
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:00 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 92):
Still, the most visible difference between a 777 and a DC 8 is the number of engines.

The DC-8 of Fits Air is not nearly so colourful as the one you linked to.
If you go to the URL below, you'll see a virtually pure white aircraft with no doors visible on the right (stb) side.
The villagers described a big aircraft, with the stripes typical for Malaysia Airlines aircraft and, probably most importantly, they could see the doors.
But then, I didn't interview the villagers from Kuda Huvadhoo, Mladives; I can't tell exactly what they saw.
And I still believe that the discrepancy between what the villagers are supposed to have seen and what the authorities have denied in March 2014, is far more important than exact details of the aircraft.

http://fitsair.com/gallery.html
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:34 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 94):

The freighters have another very visible feature, or absence of one: They do not have windows. And the DC 8 may not have doors on its right side.
On the left side, a door is easily visible.
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/stock/1215.jpg
 
YoungMans
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:31 am

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

Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:52 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 95):
The freighters have another very visible feature, or absence of one: They do not have windows. And the DC 8 may not have doors on its right side.
On the left side, a door is easily visible.

It's good to see your perseverance with this.
It seems futile, though, at this stage, to concentrate on exact details, rather than on the fundamentals.
We simply don't know what the villagers saw, apart from what is generally reported, in newspapers.
Although, the fact that it is being reported is probably an indicator that it did happen, that there was a sighting.
If that is true, then there is one fundamental discrepancy or contradiction.

Why do the villagers on that island say they saw an airliner, when the defence authorities in Male say there were no such aircraft movements. Who is correct or who is lying? That is the fundamental question.

And let's recall these words:
“We have not seen a single thing that suggests categorically that this aircraft is where they say it is, apart from this so-called electronic satellite "handshake," which I question as well.”
Sir Tim Clark in an interview with the German magazine "Der Spiegel".

What was that airline executive hinting at?
Did the villagers in the Maldives see an airliner?
Why do the authorities, ninety miles away, in Male, deny that?
Why does the 'The Weekend Australian' create the impression it was MH370?
Why, out of the blue, did they do it now, more than a year after the event?
Just these questions alone suggest there is something afoot.
Excatly what is it? What is hidden here in plain sight? That's the fundamental question.

What is the answer that is probably staring us in the face?
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

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

Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:30 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 96):
What was that airline executive hinting at?

Tim Clark is CEO of the operator of the largest 777-fleet. Afaik, he said he believed MH370 was hijacked.
He is clearly an interested party. Worst case for him is that the 777 appears unsafe in any way. Much better a hijack, due to the poor airport security that let people with stolen passports board a plane - and close the case.

But I am very curious about the answer you will receive from the Weekend Australian.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6979
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

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

Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:08 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 85):
He was curious to the reaction of Fariq at his 'mistake'. Who knows why.
Quoting oxymorph (Reply 85):
A ploy to get Fariq out of the cockpit. "oh that's right, I already confirmed FL350. Man, I need a coffee".

Whilst I like those ideas, at the end of the day Z was the boss - the main man - and he could have just ordered F out of the cockpit to do something without the need for tests or little games.

Regarding the 'need a coffee' idea, wouldn't the pilots usually just contact the FAs and ask them to bring the coffee? I'm not sure...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 88):
In regard to the sighting in the Maldives, I have written to the ‘The Weekend Australian’ (WA) and asked them for clarification.

Good.

I hope you get a reply. Moreover, a reply that allows your scenarios to progress...

Also, I'm glad you mentioned in here that you contacted them.

If they check this thread and see that you have mentioned in here that you have contacted them then they might think that if they don't reply that you will also mention that in this thread 
Quoting YoungMans (Reply 91):
The description by the islanders, the way it's reported, seems to suggest a bigger aircraft than the FitsAir DC-8.

How so? A DC-8 is still pretty big...

They didn't even mention the number of engines - the obvious clue - which suggests to me that it might have been the DC-8 as the 2 small engines under each wing on the DC-8 don't stand out like the 1 huge RR engine that hangs from each wing on the MH 777. Fits also have a MD-82 which could be a 'big plane' to the Islanders...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 91):
So who is right, which part of the story is right, can we believe anything or should we believe nothing ..??

Good question...

What / who do you believe the most???

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 97):
But I am very curious about the answer you will receive from the Weekend Australian.

Likewise.

I hope they reply.

If they don't reply, I hope YoungMans lets us know in this thread 

[Edited 2015-04-13 18:13:21]

[Edited 2015-04-13 18:15:58]
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 79

Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:57 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 98):
Regarding the 'need a coffee' idea, wouldn't the pilots usually just contact the FAs and ask them to bring the coffee? I'm not sure...

Malaysia Airlines has had the 2 crew in cockpit policy not long after the secure cockpit door was put in place.
So, if Z asks F to get out, per SOP, he needs to get an FA into the cockpit so F can get the cockpit... doesn't make sense... besides... "SOP for getting coffee" is to call the galley and get an FA to bring it into the cockpit.   

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 97):
Tim Clark is CEO of the operator of the largest 777-fleet. Afaik, he said he believed MH370 was hijacked.
He is clearly an interested party.

With all due respect to Tim Clark, he needs to read the manuals of his airplanes before saying "the pilots are not trained to know how to switch off bla bla bla"... His concern is that if this is a technical issue, he has the largest fleet of the type... he's contemplating a hijack scenario because it would be the "easy way out" for him.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !

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