Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

billie1b

Meglamonia wrote: »

Is this actually true?If It was I presume It would be on sky??

I dont think its much of a difference as to what way he replied

sopretty

sully2010 wrote: »

Story changing again, last words said were:

"Good night Malaysian three seven zero" - and not "all right, good night" as reported.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26825184

For goodness sake! Is it any wonder the relatives don't trust them? Why are they lying?

sopretty

billie1b wrote: »

I dont think its much of a difference as to what way he replied

It's relevant that a country would lie!

knotknowbody

This is a bit of a mad idea and may have been suggested before I have only read bits and pieces of the thread but is it possible the plane that sent the pings was not MH370, would it be possible for one plane to imitate the ping signals from another, is the following scenario even a remote possibility, there would need to be a few people involved here but:

A person with good technical knowledge of the plane and the various communications systems takes control of MH370, disables the ACARS etc and the plane disappears from radar during the handover from Malaysian to Vietnamese ATC, however they deliberately leave the parts of the system that sent the pings to the satellites enabled, they then divert the plane across the Malay peninsula to the Andaman sea and at this point turn off the system that sends the satellite pings, I assume as it is an electrically powered system it is possible to turn off completely if you have the right technical knowledge.

At this point there is another (smaller) plane in flight in the same general area, this smaller plane is there but without any clearance or official Knowledge and also has all its communications systems disabled, making it invisible to all but primary radar, it avoids detection by primary radar by remaining outside its range off the coast, or due to detailed knowledge of radar black-spots in the area. The two planes are now in the same general area at the same time, the smaller second plane then partially switches on its systems such that it sends pings to the satellite but those pings have been manipulated to impersonate pings from MH370.

At this point the smaller plane flew south into the Indian ocean continuing to send the pings, and therefore making it appear that is where MH370 went, however MH370 flew west to or North to somewhere like Somalia where western influence is weak and landed.

Obviously the logistics and timing of such an operation would be extremely complex especially while keeping communications silence on the two planes, those involved would have no way of knowing if the other plane actually was nearby or not, if the plane had been successfully taken over or not etc, but I think it could be done, with enough planning. It may even be possible to come up with some kind of rudimentary communications system between the parties involved.

Are there any small Learjet type planes that would have the range to head into the south Indian ocean from the Andaman sea area, could that plane then potentially turn off the system that was sending the pings and head for land, could they make it back to the nearest land, is it really possible to "fly under the radar" or avoid it in some other way, they would certainly need a smaller landing strip, perhaps they could have landed somewhere like a remote highway in north western Australia, refueled and taken off again, if they couldn't make land maybe they were prepared to die for an as yet unknown cause.

Nonoperational

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

This whole thing stinks, big cover up going on, plane never crashed in the Indian ocean.

Why would you say that? It's bordering on malicious.

Savman

knotknowbody wrote: »

At this point the smaller plane flew south into the Indian ocean continuing to send the pings, and therefore making it appear that is where MH370 went, however MH370 flew west to or North to somewhere like Somalia where western influence is weak and landed.

See, I thought about the Somalia thing as it has a history and they are ambitious enough to attempt it, it's a lawless country seemingly run by crime lords. However, to reach Africa, MH370 would've flown in proximity to Diego Garcia which by all accounts is a strong US military base. Do you really think they would overlook or even miss an unidentified aircraft on any of the god-knows-how-many surveillance systems they have in operation?

It's no secret how paranoid the US are about terrorism in the air, so this theory is extremely unlikely, if not impossible IMHO.

sully2010

billie1b wrote: »

I dont think its much of a difference as to what way he replied

Most definitely not but why the hell release the original "alright, goodnight" and allow the speculation around the way it was said, and then come out 3 weeks later saying that's not what was said. Just part of the absolute incompetence of the Malaysians I suppose but in their defense too, it is an extraordinary case for any country to have to deal with.

wil

billie1b wrote: »

I dont think its much of a difference as to what way he replied

Legal cases have been lost or won on less.
It does either smack of incompetence or disregard and fuel the distrust.
Was it in English? is that confirmed, potentially up to 3 languages here.
Could the original transcript have been incorrectly translated.
I think the first published version appeared in Chinese, could have been reverse translated as the Malaysians said they weren't releasing it.

Maximus Alexand9er wrote: »

And yet:

And I said think about it:) (wasn't having a go)

Hint - Given that this involves a (safe to assume) doomed plane.

Tengers "No" was probably more than sufficient.

Maximus Alexander

wil wrote: »

And I said think about it:) (wasn't having a go)

Hint - Given that this involves a (safe to assume) doomed plane.

Tengers "No" was probably more than sufficient.

Sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic. I wasn't trying to be condescending either, I am just too used to posting in After Hours.

knotknowbody

Savman wrote: »

See, I thought about the Somalia thing as it has a history and they are ambitious enough to attempt it, it's a lawless country seemingly run by crime lords. However, to reach Africa, MH370 would've flown in proximity to Diego Garcia which by all accounts is a strong US military base. Do you really think they would overlook or even miss an unidentified aircraft on any of the god-knows-how-many surveillance systems they have in operation?

It's no secret how paranoid the US are about terrorism in the air, so this theory is extremely unlikely, if not impossible IMHO.

It would not necessarily have gone to Somalia in this scenario, it could have gone anywhere, what I was asking in the post is, would it be possible for a second plane to have impersonated MH370 allowing it to divert to somewhere else undetected, what is the range of radar at Diego Garcia it looks fairly well south of a flight path from the Andaman Sea to Somalia, in fact it looks possible to pick a flight path that keeps you at least 400-500 km from land for the duration.

Grandpa Hassan

billie1b wrote: »

I dont think its much of a difference as to what way he replied

Pilots think otherwise. The original reply was deemed to be very strange....that is not what a pilot would normally say. Which prompted some pilots to think that there was something untoward going on.

The revised sign off is completely by the book, which is what would be expected. Especially given the cultural angle, which is that they would not have been so flippant. So is a stronger indication that there was nothing strange going on at that point

K.Flyer

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

....
So is a stronger indication that there was nothing strange going on at that point

I am not all that gone on conspiracy theories, but why did they not say this in the first place.
It just seems ridiculous that it takes them this long to change their minds about what the pilot signed off with. It certainly does nothing for the credibility of the investigation.

wil

K.Flyer wrote: »

I am not all that gone on conspiracy theories, but why did they not say this in the first place.
It just seems ridiculous that it takes them this long to change their minds about what the pilot signed off with. It certainly does nothing for the credibility of the investigation.

I'd suspect it has more to do with layers of obfuscation and the decades of "positive discrimination".
Comes across in most of the briefings, little or no electronic media, badly handwritten notes, misheard phone calls, poorly photocopied photos on cheap paper, not a digital anything in sight.

Contrast with the continuous electronic updates and media packs available from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

mbur

Savman wrote: »

See, I thought about the Somalia thing as it has a history and they are ambitious enough to attempt it, it's a lawless country seemingly run by crime lords. However, to reach Africa, MH370 would've flown in proximity to Diego Garcia which by all accounts is a strong US military base. Do you really think they would overlook or even miss an unidentified aircraft on any of the god-knows-how-many surveillance systems they have in operation?

It's no secret how paranoid the US are about terrorism in the air, so this theory is extremely unlikely, if not impossible IMHO.

Here is an interesting idea. More info on Diego Garcea in the mail

Happyman42

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Pilots think otherwise. The original reply was deemed to be very strange....that is not what a pilot would normally say. Which prompted some pilots to think that there was something untoward going on.

The revised sign off is completely by the book, which is what would be expected. Especially given the cultural angle, which is that they would not have been so flippant. So is a stronger indication that there was nothing strange going on at that point

Whatever happened to the reports that another plane in the vicinity heard garbled messages, was that true or was it also subsequently ruled out.

Savman

mbur wrote: »

Here is an interesting idea. More info on Diego Garcea in the mail

The story of the IBM guy taking a totally blacked out photo is tragically comic, really up there with aliens as worst explanation yet.

Also, if deleting files is a crime we may arrest everyone with a PC. They have still got nothing on the Captain and very little on his First Officer apart from him being a bit of a show off with the ladies (not enough to incriminate the man).

IMHO there is absolutely no way an experienced pilot flew that jet into an open ocean until it ran out of fuel and crashed. Just defies all logic, I could be proved wrong in time but it's just a very weak theory.

warren44

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you a source for the assertion that they haven't produced the full manifest?

Because the Australians have never received it thats why. The Malays are doing their best to volunteer as little info as possible.

Happyman42

warren44 wrote: »

Because the Australians have never received it thats why. The Malays are doing their best to volunteer as little info as possible.

Yes that may or may not be, but you where asked for a 'source' for that information.

warren44

Tenger wrote: »

It was produced 2 days later. (Which is still pretty shoddy work) They didn't refuse....they just didn't immediately comply with the request.

No it wasnt produced 2 days later. Where are you getting your info from because it is wrong.

warren44

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes that may or may not be, but you where asked for a 'source' for that information.

Why are you asking me for a source? Do your own google check. Why is it so hard to believe?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/22136527/malaysia-continues-to-refuse-to-release-full-mh370-cargo-manifest/

Calina

warren44 wrote: »

What makes it so hard to believe it was hijacked and landed in some covert area? We all know atleast from what they say, the comm system was intentionally disabled to conceal its position and it flew at a low altitude at one point most likely to avoid radar.. Just because someone somewhere says inmarsat saw some pings so they must have crashed in the Indian ocean doesnt make it so. Those pings can be spoofed.

amkin25 wrote: »

How do we know it was intentionally turned off,nobody found the black box so nobody knows wether it was turned off or just stopped working.

It could have stopped working when it was hit by a missile.

warren44 wrote: »

Why are you asking me for a source? Do your own google check. Why is it so hard to believe?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/22136527/malaysia-continues-to-refuse-to-release-full-mh370-cargo-manifest/

If you make an assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence for same, and not to say, do your own google check.

Is it so hard to provide the link if you have access to it?

I would also add - by the way - that I'd trust Inmarsat's technical expertise.

warren44

Calina wrote: »

If you make an assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence for same, and not to say, do your own google check.

Is it so hard to provide the link if you have access to it?

I would also add - by the way - that I'd trust Inmarsat's technical expertise.

Calina wrote: »

If you make an assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence for same, and not to say, do your own google check.

Is it so hard to provide the link if you have access to it?

I would also add - by the way - that I'd trust Inmarsat's technical expertise.

Dont you double check info on your own when the media issues statements and reports? I sure do knowing their history of not fact checking items before reporting on them. How many times has the media and Malay guvt recanted, changed and misreported info during this whole ordeal already? The media has a track record of releasing inaccurate info all the time, they release info right away without even checking it.
Why post links for every post thats ridiculous.

You can trust Inmarsats expertise all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is just an educated guess.

Did you notice how the Malay guv lacks any confidence in its statements that they made sure to say "MAY HAVE" crashed in the Indian ocean at that location. They dont sound too sure about that to me.

The satellite pings the terminal aboard the plane, The method in which they calculated the planes POSSIBLE crash landing in the water was very crude and it is not accurate by any means. They took the last known ping and figured if they had X amount of fuel, signal strength of ping that they had no place to land given the info from said ping.

They didnt know how much fuel was left, everything is a guess, and a ping doesn't not give them location coordinates, air speed or altitude the plane was traveling at. the ping returns are sometimes delayed hours from when it was first sent out, there's always the possibility that they could have been spoofed as these terminals are not encrypted.


The point is a ping is all they had to go by and a ping is just a ping, nothing more.
http://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/03/15/understanding-satellite-pings/

Happyman42

warren44 wrote: »

Dont you double check info on your own when the media issues statements and reports? I sure do knowing their history of not fact checking items before reporting on them. How many times has the media and Malay guvt recanted, changed and misreported info during this whole ordeal already? The media has a track record of releasing inaccurate info all the time, they release info right away without even checking it.
Why post links for every post thats ridiculous.

That's the rules of debate...make a claim, back it up. It's your responsibility and makes for a much better and trustworthy forum.

You are offering a personal theory based on real events...you have to give a source otherwise it is impossible to make a decision on what you say.

Tenger

billie1b wrote: »

I dont think its much of a difference as to what way he replied

The reply isn't the issue here. The lack of clarity over 2 weeks is the issue. Those tape were taken and scrutinised within 24 hours of the aircraft disappearance.....absolutely no reason why the transcript was not correct from Day 2 or 3 of this ongoing saga.

warren44

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's the rules of debate...make a claim, back it up. It's your responsibility and makes for a much better and trustworthy forum.

You are offering a personal theory based on real events...you have to give a source otherwise it is impossible to make a decision on what you say.

Im not posting anything that itsnt real, just because I am technologically experienced and know about how satellite/RF/Microwave communications perform doesnt make it my responsibility to post links on how everything works. If you doubt that how something works look it up.

The reason for these discussion is people want to know what happened to this plane and the media isnt being honest. They have a long history of making up things as they go along and not always reporting facts. Just like the Malay guvt has a history of being shady and when people offer to help them they remain uncooperative.

They have been screwing the families and everyone over since day one of this search when they with held info that was crucial info for search parties. This is a public commercial flight, they should not be secretive about anything here since citizens of other countries were aboard this plane. This wasnt some private flight with military personnel on it.

The media is out of control giving any explanation they can to make everyone believe this plane crashed when they dont know if it crashed.

They are now posting stories of how the lithium batteries could have caught fire and caused the plane to crash. The walkie talkies and the batteries that were being transported for motorola are not those kind of lithium ion batteries that are volatile like the batteries that are used onboard the plane to power the planes circuitry. They were not even installed in the walkie talkies and did not have a load connected to their terminals and were packaged accordingly so there is no reason for the batteries to heat up or explode. They are really hellbent on painting a picture of the worst possible outcome.

Happyman42

warren44 wrote: »

Im not posting anything that itsnt real,

You were simply asked to provide a source for something you said was factual...that Malaysian Air had refused to release cargo manifest. Which you now have done. It is expected and is actually the rules of the forum, that you do that.
Anything else is just your opinion, NOBODY as yet, knows whether it crashed or not.

Maximus Alexander

warren44 wrote: »

They are now posting stories of how the lithium batteries could have caught fire and caused the plane to crash. The walkie talkies and the batteries that were being transported for motorola are not those kind of lithium ion batteries that are volatile like the batteries that are used onboard the plane to power the planes circuitry. They were not even installed in the walkie talkies and did not have a load connected to their terminals and were packaged accordingly so there is no reason for the batteries to heat up or explode. They are really hellbent on painting a picture of the worst possible outcome.

Lithium batteries don't need a load connected to their terminals to potentially catch fire, they just need to get hot enough to initiate thermal runaway. This can potentially happen if there is just one defective battery in with the cargo, as it will generate enough heat to ignite adjacent batteries. This has happened before.

Fire suppression systems that are currently in use are not sufficient to control a lithium cell fire. There is no way that you can package lithium cells to eliminate this risk, or indeed to contain a fire should it break out.

warren44

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Lithium batteries don't need a load connected to their terminals to potentially catch fire, they just need to get hot enough to initiate thermal runaway. This can potentially happen if there is just one defective battery in with the cargo, as it will generate enough heat to ignite adjacent batteries. This has happened before.

Fire suppression systems that are currently in use are not sufficient to control a lithium cell fire. There is no way that you can package lithium cells to eliminate this risk, or indeed to contain a fire should it break out.

The Asiana flight had other dangerous cargo other than lithium batteries, they had flammable liquids and other dangerous materials. They never confirmed that it was the batteries that caused the fire on that one.

Also Thermal Runaway happens when the battery is connected to something. It cant happen on its own. It needs to have a load connected to it or become overcharged during charging or the terminals shorted out. The batteries on the UPS flight could have shorted out because their terminals where exposed and they were not inside of any housing like walkie talkie batteries are. The batteries were not the same as the walkie talkie batteries that were oh MH370.

Maximus Alexander

warren44 wrote: »

The Asiana flight had other dangerous cargo other than lithium batteries, they had flammable liquids and other dangerous materials. They never confirmed that it was the batteries that caused the fire on that one.

Paint and resin don't tend spontaneously combust. They need a source of ignition, all they will do is exacerbate the situation.

warren44 wrote: »

Also Thermal Runaway happens when the battery is connected to something. It cant happen on its own. It needs to have a load connected to it or become overcharged during charging or the terminals shorted out. The batteries on the UPS flight could have shorted out because their terminals where exposed and they were not inside of any housing like walkie talkie batteries are. The batteries were not the same as the walkie talkie batteries that were oh MH370.

Thermal runaway does not require the battery to be connected to anything, all it requires is for the battery to get hot enough, which initiates self-heating. This is more likely to happen when the cell is powering something, as that process generates heat, but it can also happen in a disconnected cell due to a manufacturing defect, poor design or physical damage.

LordSutch

1/ Landed or crashed somewhere in the northern corridor?
2/ Sank in the Indian ocean in one piece, hence no wreckage?
3/ Didn't take a 'corridor' at all . . . .