More recently in my area, a cargo ship called El Faro sunk in a very bad storm. Despite knowing the location that the ship went missing, it still took many weeks to locate the wreckage at the bottom of the ocean. In the case of MH370, the wreckage may not be large pieces, it is in a very deep location, the crash location is not precisely know, and it took an extended period of time to even head toward the most probable site. All these factors (and more) have contributed to scattered and limited evidence. It is not surprising that nothing has been found up to now. If the airplane broke up badly upon hitting the ocean, there may not be a large target for sonar to display on the bottom.

Please do not think I am not replying to all points. Yesterday's post was removed, I am afraid, with its response to other threads.

I agree with buzzard302 (named after the aero-engine?) that particular difficulties attended this search. The sea-floor is mountainous in parts and the water was deep. However, high-performance sonar, not least military sonar, should have picked up a 777-sized target by now. If the plane broke up on hitting the water we would expect a debris field at the surface. There is no way out of this problem - if it didn't break up we would have a large sonar target and a tight debris field on the ocean floor. If it did break up we would expect to see debris on the surface.

As for the fuel point - yes, the search box may have been out because the range/fuel calculations were out. You can see the points for and against in the closed thread. By my calculations MH370 would have been about 500 statute miles short, plus or minus say 100 miles, given the variables, not least altitude and speed, bearing in mind the fuel used up during the radical manoeuvres over the SCS, as observed on radar. That in turn undermines the INMARSAT data, or, to be more precise, the raw data on which INMARSAT's undoubtedly correct and peer-reviewed calculations were based.

Decent quality close up of the debris in this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... plane-fire

Could be something off of a boat.

Spyhunter wrote:

However, high-performance sonar, not least military sonar, should have picked up a 777-sized target by now. If the plane broke up on hitting the water we would expect a debris field at the surface. There is no way out of this problem - if it didn't break up we would have a large sonar target and a tight debris field on the ocean floor. If it did break up we would expect to see debris on the surface.

How long would you expect a Swiss Air 111 style debris field to just float around in the SIO crash site area for? Not long I would expect. Remember, no search aircraft even got to that area for at least 10 days, even longer for surface vessels. There would have been rough seas at least for some of that time to play havoc with debris. The SIO area first searched was also not the current area of interest; it wasn't until the data was further analysed that the investigators came up with the current priority search area. It is possible that no aircraft or surface vessels have even been close to the crash site. The lack of no initial debris is no surprise at all. The SIO is a big area, and the data is vague. Searchers might never have been in the correct area. If initial debris spotting vessels did pass through the right area, it was too late; the debris had floated away or gone under in the weeks it took for ships to arrive. This plane may never be found.

Sensible points, although of course there was satellite surveillance of the SIO throughout, and there is no indication of any relevant wreckage being observed by satellite, despite the intense interest in the loss of MH370. I hadn't realised they delayed the air search of the SIO for that long - I thought the RAAF got an Orion out there earlier, but I may be wrong. The delays in the air search call for comment, since there might have been survivors and the INMARSAT data was got out within about 48 hours.

I entirely agree re wreckage staying afloat in rough seas, which is one reason I am not buying the East African wreckage as having come off MH370, as opposed to say liberated bits off a Chinese 777.

Data got out 5-6 days after the accident. But the Immarsat data just gives you a distance to the satellite, not a position. Due to BFO calculations they could point out that the southern part of the circle is correct, but where a long the circle the plane is depends on prediction of the actual flightpath. Those calculations however create different points of interest depending on the method of control (autopilot mode, manual flying) and based on the speed. They also presumed that no course alterations where made. If you look at the possible area of the Immarsat data it goes from the first search area up to slightly south of Indonesia. Now interestingly GEOMAR data puts the origin of the first larger part found into an area south of Indonesia.

Per AvHerald

On Jul 18th 2016 the ATSB reported that Malaysia's DCA and ATSB are examining a piece of large debris found on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania. The debris is likely to be part of a wing flap. The part has arrived in Canberra for thorough examination related to the search for MH-370.

On Sep 15th 2016 Malaysia's Minister of Transport announced, that the part has been positively identified an inboard section of the outboard wing flap, all manufacturing numbers and identification stamps found on the debris are consistent with the aircraft line 404 which was delivered to Malaysia Airlines and registered as 9M-MRO. The Minister therefore stated: "It was confirmed that Part No. 5 was the inboard section of a Boeing 777 right, outboard flap, originating from the Malaysian Airlines aircraft registered 9M-MRO."

Auchmithie wrote:

Per AvHerald

On Jul 18th 2016 the ATSB reported that Malaysia's DCA and ATSB are examining a piece of large debris found on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania. The debris is likely to be part of a wing flap. The part has arrived in Canberra for thorough examination related to the search for MH-370.

On Sep 15th 2016 Malaysia's Minister of Transport announced, that the part has been positively identified an inboard section of the outboard wing flap, all manufacturing numbers and identification stamps found on the debris are consistent with the aircraft line 404 which was delivered to Malaysia Airlines and registered as 9M-MRO. The Minister therefore stated: "It was confirmed that Part No. 5 was the inboard section of a Boeing 777 right, outboard flap, originating from the Malaysian Airlines aircraft registered 9M-MRO."

Here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... h370-plane
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malay ... SKCN11L13G

So how many parts have been identified as belonging to or are likely to have come from MH370

Of course the numbers match! Of itself they prove very little - anyone dropping 777 bits off would take care to ensure matching numbers, which could easily be replicated. It is improbable that the wreckage could have stayed afloat for so long in a sea as rough as the SIO. What we need is the aircraft, or a large chunk of it, not isolated bits.

Spyhunter wrote:

Of course the numbers match! Of itself they prove very little - anyone dropping 777 bits off would take care to ensure matching numbers, which could easily be replicated. It is improbable that the wreckage could have stayed afloat for so long in a sea as rough as the SIO. What we need is the aircraft, or a large chunk of it, not isolated bits.

Once again, with respect, we find that any evidence that contradicts your personal theories are invalid, while claims that you make about what you "know" as fact are to be accepted at face value. How do we ever move forward in this dialogue when we can't even agree on what are facts and evidence? Frankly, when they find "a large chunk of it" in the SIO, and I'm reasonably confident that they one day will, I am curious what your excuse will be then? That's a rhetorical question because nobody knows what they'll say until they actually say it, but when you continually write off physical evidence as planted, I'm not sure how you can point to more physical evidence as something that you'll accept?

This plane will never be found and the authorities will never admit what really happened, to the public.

Have fun with the speculation!

Spyhunter wrote:

Of course the numbers match! Of itself they prove very little - anyone dropping 777 bits off would take care to ensure matching numbers, which could easily be replicated. It is improbable that the wreckage could have stayed afloat for so long in a sea as rough as the SIO. What we need is the aircraft, or a large chunk of it, not isolated bits.

I'll keep this short given that some have an agenda to make posts disappear like MH370, but if something from a MH 777 washed up around the SCS or Gulf of Thailand would you claim that that was also a part from China that was just dumped over the side of a boat?

RightWings wrote:

This plane will never be found and the authorities will never admit what really happened, to the public.

Have fun with the speculation!

That in itself is a speculation

peterjohns wrote:

RightWings wrote:

This plane will never be found and the authorities will never admit what really happened, to the public.

Have fun with the speculation!

That in itself is a speculation

Yes, and.... your point?

Spyhunter wrote:

Of course the numbers match! Of itself they prove very little - anyone dropping 777 bits off would take care to ensure matching numbers, which could easily be replicated.

Spyhunter you are the best!

What you seem to be saying is that Chinese intelligence infiltrated Boeing and/or Malaysia Airlines to get the part numbers from 9M-MRO, then took a section of outboard wing flap from a Chinese 777, bashed it about a bit, took it down to Big Ron’s dodgy second hand car dealership in the backstreets of Shanghai to have him file off the original part numbers and replace them with the part number’s from 9M-MRO, then put it on a ship or a submarine and dumped it close enough to the coast to ensure that it was washed up and was found.

To what end?

To misdirect all those people who suspect it was the Chinese wot done it? The only person who thinks that is you.

Auchmithie wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that Chinese intelligence infiltrated Boeing and/or Malaysia Airlines to get the part numbers from 9M-MRO, then took a section of outboard wing flap from a Chinese 777, bashed it about a bit, took it down to Big Ron’s dodgy second hand car dealership in the backstreets of Shanghai to have him file off the original part numbers and replace them with the part number’s from 9M-MRO, then put it on a ship or a submarine and dumped it close enough to the coast to ensure that it was washed up and was found.

Chinese? no. Russians neither.

The only entity that could perceiveably have easy access to Boeing parts is some US 3letter org or other.
And they have a history of going overboard in such things.

This together with the dancing around producing pertinent information ( but having zero qualms
about conjuring up causalities or putting blame ) in the case of MH17 would point to the US as having a very
active part in this.
Time will tell.

WIederling wrote:

Auchmithie wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that Chinese intelligence infiltrated Boeing and/or Malaysia Airlines to get the part numbers from 9M-MRO, then took a section of outboard wing flap from a Chinese 777, bashed it about a bit, took it down to Big Ron’s dodgy second hand car dealership in the backstreets of Shanghai to have him file off the original part numbers and replace them with the part number’s from 9M-MRO, then put it on a ship or a submarine and dumped it close enough to the coast to ensure that it was washed up and was found.

Chinese? no. Russians neither.
The only entity that could perceiveably have easy access to Boeing parts is some US 3letter org or other.

You're kind of missing Auchmithie's real point. He did mention the Chinese in response to Spyhunter's hypothesis. But really, his point is a bit broader than that, and it is that the whole storyline "MH370 was made disappear and false evidence is being planted" is absolutely bonkers, makes no sense, has no plausibility and not a shred of evidence to support it - regardless of whether it's the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Iranians, Israelis, Germans, French, Brazilians or whoever you want to see behind this.

It's easy to mock that which you do not understand! Penetration of Boeing and Malaysian systems by the Third Department of the PLA would be straightforward, as would fabrication of fake parts. These could either be taken off an existing 777 or manufactured to Boeing specs, or reverse-engineered, a Chinese specialty. A friend of mine once found a Chinese HS Trident in bits in a hangar - even the Spey engines were reverse-engineered!

Of course if the plane were found in the SIO I would change my opinion, but it's the plane I'm looking,not miscellaneous bits. I respectfully remind those pushing the SIO theory that despite an extensive sonar search of the SIO MH370 has not been found.

If the main debris was to be discovered at the bottom of the SIO and the outboard flap and right flaperon were not present at the site would that change your opinion about the currently recovered debris?

Spyhunter wrote:

Of course if the plane were found in the SIO I would change my opinion, but it's the plane I'm looking,not miscellaneous bits. I respectfully remind those pushing the SIO theory that despite an extensive sonar search of the SIO MH370 has not been found.

This is interesting. You have been steadfast in stating that it is categorically not in the SIO, yet here you hedge. I know that it's merely for appearances, but when you KNOW something to be true, you don't allow for other eventualities. I "believe" the plane is in the SIO. You "know" the plane is in the SCS. I can say with honesty that I might be wrong and it doesn't negate my position. You, however, cannot allow for being wrong because it brings the entire house of cards that you've been weaving crashing down. There can be no room for "if" at this point - you are either right or wrong. Period.

anfromme wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Auchmithie wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that Chinese intelligence infiltrated Boeing and/or Malaysia Airlines to get the part numbers from 9M-MRO, then took a section of outboard wing flap from a Chinese 777, bashed it about a bit, took it down to Big Ron’s dodgy second hand car dealership in the backstreets of Shanghai to have him file off the original part numbers and replace them with the part number’s from 9M-MRO, then put it on a ship or a submarine and dumped it close enough to the coast to ensure that it was washed up and was found.

Chinese? no. Russians neither.
The only entity that could perceiveably have easy access to Boeing parts is some US 3letter org or other.

You're kind of missing Auchmithie's real point.

I don't think he's missing anything. I think he's taking yet another opportunity to make his own. It's somewhat predictable at this point.

RightWings wrote:

peterjohns wrote:

RightWings wrote:

This plane will never be found and the authorities will never admit what really happened, to the public.

Have fun with the speculation!

That in itself is a speculation

Yes, and.... your point?

Well the point is, that a lot of people have theories and make statements as to what has happened. As yourself!
The point is- that until the true result of the crash is unearthed- everything is speculation. Only some seem to think they know more than others- like yourself apparently.
You claim some authorities know something. I believe that is not true.
I, as an insider on the howabouts of airliners, would tend to put my two cents on an onboard fire. That would explain the shutdown of electrical busses, and the lack of communication. If there was a loss of cabin pressure due to the electrical fire - there you go- a renegade aircraft with no one alive on board.
It is possible and for myself the most likely outcome-IF no foulplay by the pilots is involved. I couldn´t and wouldn´t have believed that was possible before the German Wings crash in France.
But I sincerly believe this crash had a tecnical reason.
Then again--- pure speculation!!

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I don't think he's missing anything. I think he's taking yet another opportunity to make his own. It's somewhat predictable at this point.

Which is why trolls should be banned from this forum; trolls take the level of dialogue down and breed other trolls.

peterjohns wrote:

Only some seem to think they know more than others........................
I, as an insider on the howabouts of airliners, would tend to put my two cents on an onboard fire

Yea right! A fire which just happened to explode magically at the instant of FIR turnover and caused the plane to do a 140° turn and then fly along two different FIR boundaries for another hour and from there to skirt a third FIR boundary as it turned south. Meanwhile the voice comms, mode s, transponder and satellite modem dropped out (and in the case of the sat modem came back on) in non-simultaneous fashion. And the plane flew for another 7 hours. This "theory" falls in the same category as the other forum troll's theories.

Keep it real folks.

salttee wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I don't think he's missing anything. I think he's taking yet another opportunity to make his own. It's somewhat predictable at this point.

Which is why trolls should be banned from this forum; trolls take the level of dialogue down and breed other trolls.

Hey, for some it's their living. We should be respectful of that.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

salttee wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I don't think he's missing anything. I think he's taking yet another opportunity to make his own. It's somewhat predictable at this point.

Which is why trolls should be banned from this forum; trolls take the level of dialogue down and breed other trolls.

Hey, for some it's their living. We should be respectful of that.

They troll to live and live to troll?

neutrino wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

salttee wrote:

Which is why trolls should be banned from this forum; trolls take the level of dialogue down and breed other trolls.

Hey, for some it's their living. We should be respectful of that.

They troll to live and live to troll?

Well, the second half of my post was sarcasm, but the first I think has a lot of merit.

Spyhunter wrote:

I respectfully remind those pushing the SIO theory that despite an extensive sonar search of the SIO MH370 has not been found.

You make it sound like the majority of the entire SIO has been searched by sonar!

All they have to go off is one final ping arc. They don't know which direction, from which altitude, and at which speed, the plane flew from / for after that final ping point. Heck, they don't even know which point on the arc that final ping took place from! They just know it is somewhere on the Southern arc. Factor in a glide from altitude in any direction from a long section of that Southern arc, then factor in current drift until the sea floor, and you will see that they have really searched just a tiny fraction of all possible areas.

May I remind you that after a thorough search of the SCS area around MH370's last known ATC position, commencing from day 1 and lasting at least 2 weeks, nothing has turned up in the SCS.

Yea right! A fire which just happened to explode magically at the instant of FIR turnover and caused the plane to do a 140° turn and then fly along two different FIR boundaries for another hour and from there to skirt a third FIR boundary as it turned south. Meanwhile the voice comms, mode s, transponder and satellite modem dropped out (and in the case of the sat modem came back on) in non-simultaneous fashion. And the plane flew for another 7 hours. This "theory" falls in the same category as the other forum troll's theories.

Keep it real folks.[/quote]


Actualy the routine is to extinguish fire, and land at the nearest feasable airport. Now thinking of the SR111 fire on board, what will you as pilot do if you presume an electrical fire in the E-compartment? You will kill all electrical busses not needed one by one. You will need the instuments on the P/F and the A/P but not much more. So off go the IFE, the lights, the Radios, Acars, x-ponders, galley pwr, everything that pulls amps.
The next thing you´ll do is turn back to the best suitable A/P, which might be the one you just came from taking topography into acount (mountains).
If then anything happens with smoke or pressurisation or both- you´ll have the given scenario.
I´m not saying that is what happened, for me it just is the most plausible.
In the German Wings accident last year I believed it could have been a broken windshield, and the pilots just had time to initiate a descent before incapable.... I was wrong there as we know...

What I am really saying is don´t jump to certain conclusions, as it is really a mystery up till now. But I believe the truth will come out and I believe the recorders will be found some day.

Ah, I don't accept that the search of the SCS was thorough - the authorities knew what happened very quickly and mounted only a cursory searach.

All valid points on the ping data, which at best gives us a search box. However that box, thousands of square miles in area, has been thoroughly searched with modern side-scan sonar, including military sonar, and the search has produced no results at all. That is what would we expect because the plane isn't in the SIO,it's in the SCS.

I was responding to a theoretical enquiry re the SIO - if new facts emerge, intelligence analysis has to be revised. If the Titanic had been found in the Indian Ocean the Atlantic sinking theory would have needed substantial revision.

Spyhunter wrote:

Ah, I don't accept that the search of the SCS was thorough - the authorities knew what happened very quickly and mounted only a cursory searach.

All valid points on the ping data, which at best gives us a search box. However that box, thousands of square miles in area, has been thoroughly searched with modern side-scan sonar, including military sonar, and the search has produced no results at all. That is what would we expect because the plane isn't in the SIO,it's in the SCS.

I was responding to a theoretical enquiry re the SIO - if new facts emerge, intelligence analysis has to be revised. If the Titanic had been found in the Indian Ocean the Atlantic sinking theory would have needed substantial revision.

Let me jump in here,

You may have a theory but at least you should try to back up your claims or theory with the data presented by the investigation or from data obtained somewhere else. The pings obtained from the satellite coincides with a plane flying west-southwest after been seen spotted without transponder by radar. Lack of debris in the SCS doesn't support your theory either.

peterjohns wrote:

Actualy the routine is to extinguish fire, and land at the nearest feasable airport. Now thinking of the SR111 fire on board, what will you as pilot do if you presume an electrical fire in the E-compartment? You will kill all electrical busses not needed one by one. You will need the instuments on the P/F and the A/P but not much more. So off go the IFE, the lights, the Radios, Acars, x-ponders, galley pwr, everything that pulls amps.

As a pilot you don't presume anything, you follow the checklist (Smoke, Fire or Fumes) and the checklist doesn't include anything but IFE and the Cabin/Utility switch from your list. The only time you power something down is if you can positively identify the source -- you don't start pulling circuit breakers or killing busses. If there was a fire in the E&E bay (highly unlikely), the only indication the flight crew would have is a Smoke Equip Cooling message with a requirement to "land at nearest suitable airport" if it doesn't go away -- you'd be talking to somebody.

If there was a fire in the E&E bay that did knock out the radios (as opposed to the pilot pulling CB's), it would probably takeout the autopilot as well making flight for another 7 hours impossible.

7BOEING7 wrote:

peterjohns wrote:

Actualy the routine is to extinguish fire, and land at the nearest feasable airport. Now thinking of the SR111 fire on board, what will you as pilot do if you presume an electrical fire in the E-compartment? You will kill all electrical busses not needed one by one. You will need the instuments on the P/F and the A/P but not much more. So off go the IFE, the lights, the Radios, Acars, x-ponders, galley pwr, everything that pulls amps.

As a pilot you don't presume anything, you follow the checklist (Smoke, Fire or Fumes) and the checklist doesn't include anything but IFE and the Cabin/Utility switch from your list. The only time you power something down is if you can positively identify the source -- you don't start pulling circuit breakers or killing busses. If there was a fire in the E&E bay (highly unlikely), the only indication the flight crew would have is a Smoke Equip Cooling message with a requirement to "land at nearest suitable airport" if it doesn't go away -- you'd be talking to somebody.

If there was a fire in the E&E bay that did knock out the radios (as opposed to the pilot pulling CB's), it would probably takeout the autopilot as well making flight for another 7 hours impossible.

So what are you trying to imply? Something happened- and I find it hard to believe that it was suicide- I strongly believe the source of the tragedy happened fast and didn´t leave anybody alive to cope with the aircraft. Lack of oxygen springs to mind first. The turning off of all electrics seems to point to a fire.Thats all I am implying and do not claim to have any evidence or nearer insight of the case. But to my understanding and my training it seems to be logic.
Thats all.

peterjohns wrote:

So what are you trying to imply? Something happened- and I find it hard to believe that it was suicide- I strongly believe the source of the tragedy happened fast and didn´t leave anybody alive to cope with the aircraft. Lack of oxygen springs to mind first. The turning off of all electrics seems to point to a fire.Thats all I am implying and do not claim to have any evidence or nearer insight of the case. But to my understanding and my training it seems to be logic.
Thats all.

I'm not implying anything. Something happened that's true -- but the odds of an airplane malfunction leaving everybody on the airplane dead and the airplane flyable for another 7 hours pale in comparison to the odds of somebody flying the airplane for another 7 hours -- be it one of the flight crew or some marginally qualified terrorist.

peterjohns wrote:

RightWings wrote:

peterjohns wrote:

That in itself is a speculation

Yes, and.... your point?

Well the point is, that a lot of people have theories and make statements as to what has happened. As yourself!
The point is- that until the true result of the crash is unearthed- everything is speculation. Only some seem to think they know more than others- like yourself apparently.
You claim some authorities know something. I believe that is not true.
I, as an insider on the howabouts of airliners, would tend to put my two cents on an onboard fire. That would explain the shutdown of electrical busses, and the lack of communication. If there was a loss of cabin pressure due to the electrical fire - there you go- a renegade aircraft with no one alive on board.
It is possible and for myself the most likely outcome-IF no foulplay by the pilots is involved. I couldn´t and wouldn´t have believed that was possible before the German Wings crash in France.
But I sincerly believe this crash had a tecnical reason.
Then again--- pure speculation!!

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that you were an insider. I apologise.

I agree with the fact that everything is speculation, I never mentioned it wasn't, just for everyone to enjoy it, which I still maintain.

Anyway, let me know when you find it.

Spyhunter wrote:

Ah, I don't accept that the search of the SCS was thorough - the authorities knew what happened very quickly and mounted only a cursory searach.

All valid points on the ping data, which at best gives us a search box. However that box, thousands of square miles in area, has been thoroughly searched with modern side-scan sonar, including military sonar, and the search has produced no results at all. That is what would we expect because the plane isn't in the SIO,it's in the SCS.

I was responding to a theoretical enquiry re the SIO - if new facts emerge, intelligence analysis has to be revised. If the Titanic had been found in the Indian Ocean the Atlantic sinking theory would have needed substantial revision.

Ok, I must admit that I feel a bit better about your previous postings. I now understand that they are merely a theory, which would have to be substantially revised if the aircraft is found in the SiO.

I had always interpreted your statements about the SCS as factual. That was my error, and I apologize.

Spyhunter wrote:

Ah, I don't accept that the search of the SCS was thorough - the authorities knew what happened very quickly and mounted only a cursory searach.

All valid points on the ping data, which at best gives us a search box. However that box, thousands of square miles in area, has been thoroughly searched with modern side-scan sonar, including military sonar, and the search has produced no results at all. That is what would we expect because the plane isn't in the SIO,it's in the SCS.

I was responding to a theoretical enquiry re the SIO - if new facts emerge, intelligence analysis has to be revised. If the Titanic had been found in the Indian Ocean the Atlantic sinking theory would have needed substantial revision.

As I pointed out the box is not a box, but a number of different circles. The box only happens if you predict a course and speed that the plane could have flown and intersect it with the circles based on the distance to the satellite. The box searched is based on a constant heading and speed, but if it is an intentional act by a pilot, this is not a given. If you allow for course and speed changes, the box in which the plane could have ended up is, as I already explained, huge. It basically goes from the current search area all the way up the circle to an area just slightly south of Indonesia.



the first rings point to a quite southerly heading, because otherwise the plane would either have circled (but was still in radar range) or would have flown too slow. Starting with the 21:41 circle it becomes possible that a reduction in speed and a heading more to the North would work.

In fairness I think the SIO search area was essentially a box - it was that to which I was referring.

All intelligence analysis has to be reviewed if fresh facts come to light. Of course I want to see the matter resolved once and for all, by the finding of the aircraft.

Pace the nonsense being touted by 'Psychonaut' on Wikipedia I am not a conspiracy theorist. They are off with the fairies, alleging that MH17 was really 9M-MRO, that MH370 landed in Diego Garcia, an Anglo-American military base, the passengers murdered and the plane flown empty to Israel. I kid you not, that is the rubbish that is out there, and millions of people appear to be buying it across the Middle East. I am only interested in fact. Until the plane is found baseless rumours will continue to abound.

There was wreckage in the SCS, a starboard 777 door - you can see the debate on the closed thread. It still has not been accounted for. There ought to be a sidescan sonar search by naval vessels of the seafloor beneath that wreckage, calculating a search box by reference to ocean currents and possible shallow angle of descent of the hull, although my analysis is that the angle of descent was steep, consistent with a minimal debris field at the surface.

If the ping data related to the plane, and not the software, then the plane had to have the endurance to get there. The debate on this in the locked forum generated more heat than light I'm afraid. What I have tried to do is work out the endurance of 370 from the Deviation Point, using the suggested routing for the SIO, and making an allowance for the fuel used up in the extreme manoeuvres seen on Vietnamese radar, which are not seriously disputedm,a dhwich must have been at or close to TOGA power, I calculate endurance from the DP as approximately 3,200 statute miles. Allowing for a 75 statute mile glide from say FL350, a reasonable cruise altitude, that leaves us about 425 miles short of the northernmost boundary of the primary search box.

There is then the puzzling absence of radar data to account for - had a 777-sized target been picked up by either the Alice Springs or Laverton OTH radar arrays then I would have no hesitation in going with the SIO theory. Laverton radar has a 180 deg arc, Phase 5 capability as of March 2014 and a range well in excess of published capabilities, subject to sunspot activity. There was however no unusual solar activity on 08/09 MAR 14. I have also taken into account the absence of Indian military and naval radar reporting, even though the SIO theory has 370 transiting Indian airspace at altitude. I accept that the ATC radars at Port Blair, which is too far north anyway, were offline, but military and naval radar is usually 24/7, and CarNic IAFB had dual systems, with 4D medium range capability at the material time.

To change the subject a lovely photo of a DC-6B on the home page this morning! They were a good old bus, only flew in a 6 once, sadly, a long time ago, from Mascot to Essendon (cue somebody to say it must have been a 4!)

Spyhunter wrote:

There was wreckage in the SCS, a starboard 777 door

you have yet to provide any evidence of your claim other than "Boeing doesn't dispute it".

If you look at the latest GEOMAR analysis
it appears, that just south of Indonesia is a lot better a guess than where the search is currently taking place.

Regarding your claims that if the wreckage was in the SIO it would have been found by sonar right now.
It wouldn't. Sonar is very limited in it's capabilities dictated by simple physics and nowhere does it state,
that "high capability Military sonar" was used or hasn't found anything. In fact Fugro is critizised for the technology being used as it is....

peterjohns wrote:

I find it hard to believe that it was suicide- I strongly believe the source of the tragedy happened fast

As long as this "belief" of yours completely contradicts the known facts and objective logic as applied to the missing airliner, crew and passengers (as it does) it is an unfounded belief. However, it strikes me that this might not actually be the case, this belief might be based on another "belief" - a belief that airline pilots should be held as sacred entities who can do no wrong, and should never be accused of doing anything wrong outside of rooms with closed doors, lest the public lose faith in the gods who guide them through the sky. I hope that is not the case here because that would be a disservice to the flying public, the families of the murdered passengers and crew (including one airline pilot who was murdered along with the others) and anyone who has an interest in fair play. Also, this magical belief that the broad series of known events re: MH-370 was caused by a mechanical malfunction would serve the interests of those who have lied distorted and omitted known facts about MH-370 since the first day of its disappearance. And I object to that.

RightWings wrote:

I agree with the fact that everything is speculation

Wrong, "everything" is not speculation. There are an enormous number of known facts regarding MH-370 available to anyone who cares to look at them and all the known facts lie in accordance with each other, that is to say there are no known facts that challenge the validity of other known facts: there are no contradictions to be found.

seahawk wrote:

the box in which the plane could have ended up is, as I already explained, huge

"Huge" doesn't do justice to the size of the area where the plane could have ended up in accord with the known facts. The area searched so far was merely deemed the "most probable" according to what was known last year. I think a better term to describe the area where the plane might have ended up as "unimaginably huge", as even the area which was just searched included vast areas of underwater mountain ranges. It's like standing in a little valley in Colorado and trying to imagine how "huge" are the rocky mountains: unimaginable.

InsideMan wrote:

it appears, that just south of Indonesia is a lot better a guess than where the search is currently taking place.

How can you propose that the location of the wreck could be more than 120 miles or so on either side of the 00:19 ping ring?

Difficult to make points when posts keep getting removed! I responded to the latest points yesterday, but my response didn't stay up for very long!

Modern side-scan sonar is very effective, particularly military sonar, and both a Royal Navy SSN and RAN vessels were deployed in the search for MH370. Had the plane been anywhere near the search box it would have been found by now - my opinion remains that 2 1/2 years have been wasted searching in the wrong ocean.

Spyhunter wrote:

There was wreckage in the SCS, a starboard 777 door - you can see the debate on the closed thread. It still has not been accounted for.

Look at any of the images of the said item and it looks nothing like a 777 door, let alone a MH 777 door which has at least red or red & blue paint on it. The hole in the centre of the item also could not be a 777 door window. Nothing matches. I dismiss the SCS item as being from any 777. It was something off of a boat or rubbish.

Boeing or the authorities don't need to deny your claim, just like they don't deny the more common claims that a pilot was responsible. Think about it.

Spyhunter wrote:

Difficult to make points when posts keep getting removed! I responded to the latest points yesterday, but my response didn't stay up for very long!

Modern side-scan sonar is very effective, particularly military sonar, and both a Royal Navy SSN and RAN vessels were deployed in the search for MH370. Had the plane been anywhere near the search box it would have been found by now - my opinion remains that 2 1/2 years have been wasted searching in the wrong ocean.

Not the wrong ocean, just the wrong place in a massive ocean.

They are not just looking for a needle in a haystack, first they need to find the correct farm, and then the correct hsystack to search. They could be way off.

seahawk wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

Ah, I don't accept that the search of the SCS was thorough - the authorities knew what happened very quickly and mounted only a cursory searach.

All valid points on the ping data, which at best gives us a search box. However that box, thousands of square miles in area, has been thoroughly searched with modern side-scan sonar, including military sonar, and the search has produced no results at all. That is what would we expect because the plane isn't in the SIO,it's in the SCS.

I was responding to a theoretical enquiry re the SIO - if new facts emerge, intelligence analysis has to be revised. If the Titanic had been found in the Indian Ocean the Atlantic sinking theory would have needed substantial revision.

As I pointed out the box is not a box, but a number of different circles. The box only happens if you predict a course and speed that the plane could have flown and intersect it with the circles based on the distance to the satellite. The box searched is based on a constant heading and speed, but if it is an intentional act by a pilot, this is not a given. If you allow for course and speed changes, the box in which the plane could have ended up is, as I already explained, huge. It basically goes from the current search area all the way up the circle to an area just slightly south of Indonesia.



the first rings point to a quite southerly heading, because otherwise the plane would either have circled (but was still in radar range) or would have flown too slow. Starting with the 21:41 circle it becomes possible that a reduction in speed and a heading more to the North would work.

seahawk, I agree with your points. One thing that has always worried me, was that under the intentional scenarios, the plane could have been flown around in different patterns (circles) in order to throw investigators off. I know that the Inmarsat data (BFO or BTO - forget which of the two) indicated the Southern arc, but did it indicate a particular more likely section of the Southern arc or they are just using tne flight duration to work out which section of the Southern arc to target? Again, if the plane did not fly in a somewhat straight line / heading, using flignt duration might misslead the investigators where on the arc to search, especially if it flew around in circular shaped patterns. Speed is another issue also given the length of flight time. 5 hrs + in a straight line at 300 or 600mph is a massive difference. I'm not surprised it hasn't been found and I think luck will play a part if it ever is.

Spyhunter wrote:

Difficult to make points when posts keep getting removed! I responded to the latest points yesterday, but my response didn't stay up for very long!

Modern side-scan sonar is very effective, particularly military sonar, and both a Royal Navy SSN and RAN vessels were deployed in the search for MH370. Had the plane been anywhere near the search box it would have been found by now - my opinion remains that 2 1/2 years have been wasted searching in the wrong ocean.

Side scan on Royal Navy SSN's don't point down, it points up and sideways and is used primarily for under ice ops. I should know as I used to fix them...

Towed side scans used in the survey industry are good but you have to be fairly close to the seabed to get good definition and on a hilly terrain in deep water it's not very likely you would be that close so objects would need to be fairly large to seen. The side scan range is affected by the height the sonar is flown at and at the extremes its rubbish.... The search area would have been surveyed first with a suitable multi-beam system to see if any large objects can be seen.

seahawk wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

Ah, I don't accept that the search of the SCS was thorough - the authorities knew what happened very quickly and mounted only a cursory searach.

All valid points on the ping data, which at best gives us a search box. However that box, thousands of square miles in area, has been thoroughly searched with modern side-scan sonar, including military sonar, and the search has produced no results at all. That is what would we expect because the plane isn't in the SIO,it's in the SCS.

I was responding to a theoretical enquiry re the SIO - if new facts emerge, intelligence analysis has to be revised. If the Titanic had been found in the Indian Ocean the Atlantic sinking theory would have needed substantial revision.

As I pointed out the box is not a box, but a number of different circles. The box only happens if you predict a course and speed that the plane could have flown and intersect it with the circles based on the distance to the satellite. The box searched is based on a constant heading and speed, but if it is an intentional act by a pilot, this is not a given. If you allow for course and speed changes, the box in which the plane could have ended up is, as I already explained, huge. It basically goes from the current search area all the way up the circle to an area just slightly south of Indonesia.



the first rings point to a quite southerly heading, because otherwise the plane would either have circled (but was still in radar range) or would have flown too slow. Starting with the 21:41 circle it becomes possible that a reduction in speed and a heading more to the North would work.

Could it be possible to lay out the plane's approximate flying range based on fuel from the departure airport? I think it would be interesting to see where those two circles intercept.

Am I the only one who thinks that this flight will forever be a mystery? We have a probable cause, but I highly doubt we'll ever find enough of the aircraft to know for certain what happened.

Netflyer wrote:

Could it be possible to lay out the plane's approximate flying range based on fuel from the departure airport?

This has been done and the amount of fuel available would have taken the plane to the latitude of the last projected line given by the Inmarsat satellite data. However there are unknowns in the rate of burn by 9MMRO (we don't know the altitude at various points of the flight, or the exact speed nor do we have any but an approximation of winds aloft), so we can't draw a plot line to show exactly where (along a line) the plane would have run out of fuel.

It is significant to note, that the approximate point of where the plane would have been expected to have run out of fuel is about where the 00:19 ping ring falls. Thus, the first Inmarsat circle of probable location (ping ring) fits closely with the time of the last known radar position provided for the plane and on the other end, the last ping ring agrees with fuel burn estimations. Yet, all we can work out is a ballpark idea of the exact place where the plane went down.

So while we know about where in the haystack the needle lies, it is still a needle in a haystack.

salttee wrote:

Netflyer wrote:

Could it be possible to lay out the plane's approximate flying range based on fuel from the departure airport?

This has been done and the amount of fuel available would have taken the plane to the latitude of the last projected line given by the Inmarsat satellite data. However there are unknowns in the rate of burn by 9MMRO (we don't know the altitude at various points of the flight, or the exact speed nor do we have any but an approximation of winds aloft), so we can't draw a plot line to show exactly where (along a line) the plane would have run out of fuel.

It is significant to note, that the approximate point of where the plane would have been expected to have run out of fuel is about where the 00:19 ping ring falls. Thus, the first Inmarsat circle of probable location (ping ring) fits closely with the time of the last known radar position provided for the plane and on the other end, the last ping ring agrees with fuel burn estimations. Yet, all we can work out is a ballpark idea of the exact place where the plane went down.

So while we know about where in the haystack the needle lies, it is still a needle in a haystack.

Got it!, thanks

Quoting saltee,(reply 98)

So while we know about where in the haystack the needle lies, it is still a needle in a haystack.

The problem is that probably there is no needle at all,judging from the pieces. It's futile. A systematic search in the islands would yield more and won't be expensive, especially if it done by volunteers. A few hours before the previous thread was locked I was thinking: "Unless a piece with tell-tale signs is found..." Hail to you, Mr Gibson!