Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Galway K9

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

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

Not a theory...but an unproven, unfounded hypothesis.

Tenger

warren44 wrote: »

...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. ....

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.

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.

Lithium batteries which are mishandled in transit (and possibly mis-packed) can sustain impact damage which can cause thermal runaway. Happened in the US a couple of years ago. The traced fire back to a dropped cargo container which damaged the batteries within.

Modern airliners do carry Lithium batteries in normal operations however they have to be packed and handled in a certified manner and the captain needs to be informed as they are classed as hazardous cargo. In addition in the US carriage of uninstalled Lithium batteries in baggage is restricted.

PS, Warren no need to mention aircraft Lithium battery as this was not a B787

LordSutch

Haven't heard much about HMS Echo . . . .

I presume they're scouring the depths with their echo finder?

sopretty

So now they (Malaysian authorities) are saying that not only was 'all right good night' not the last communication uttered from the plane, but that they are still now investigating who spoke?????????

FFS

Sure you couldn't believe a word we've been fed from Malaysia at this point. I am now not surprised with the relatives' reactions.

There is something dodgy going on here. Whether it is mere incompetence or something more sinister, I don't know, but there is definitely reason to doubt every single thing the media has been told. It doesn't add up. None of it. And when things don't add up, it's usually for a reason.

mbur

mbur wrote: »

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

Savman wrote: »

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

Tragic this may be but it is only comic if you happen to be one of the people putting black bags over other people's heads. . Comparing this report to aliens is glib beyond belief.

Dr. Bre

prob shot down by mistake by a country and there sending everyone on a wild goose chase

Oryx

Dr. Bre wrote: »

prob shot down by mistake by a country and there sending everyone on a wild goose chase

Wouldn't be the first time.

Mountainsandh

sopretty wrote: »

So now they (Malaysian authorities) are saying that not only was 'all right good night' not the last communication uttered from the plane, but that they are still now investigating who spoke?????????

FFS

Sure you couldn't believe a word we've been fed from Malaysia at this point. I am now not surprised with the relatives' reactions.

There is something dodgy going on here. Whether it is mere incompetence or something more sinister, I don't know, but there is definitely reason to doubt every single thing the media has been told. It doesn't add up. None of it. And when things don't add up, it's usually for a reason.

Yes to all of the above.
FFS is right.
Not sure I trust the pings and corridor thing any more either. Sure they can tell us what they want, it's not like we're going to be able to double check the ping thing.

And I still think the Northern corridor was not that unlikely, if the pings/corridors are indeed on the cards.

Sam Russell

These pings are brief echos back to the Inmarsat of a RTS message. Inmarsat are saying there was only one satellite that received the ping, and that they know the angle it came in at. Is that possible?

The also say they used doppler to determine the direction the plane was going - N or S. Is that possible that they were able to detect the frequency of the ping signal compared to the nominal? It would appear to me to be a lot of info was captured from such a brief and infrequent signal (once per hour over 6 hours).

Where did the info about the B777 climbing to 45,000ft and then decending to 12,00 ft come from?

How far does Diego Garcia's radar reach a target at 40,000 ft?

None of this adds up.

Tenger

Sam Russell wrote: »

.....Inmarsat are saying there was only one satellite that received the ping, and that they know the angle it came in at. Is that possible?

The also say they used doppler to determine the direction the plane was going - N or S. Is that possible that they were able to detect the frequency of the ping signal compared to the nominal? It would appear to me to be a lot of info was captured from such a brief and infrequent signal (once per hour over 6 hours)........

If 2 satellites had of picked up teh ping then they could have narrowed down the location. They know the angle it bounced...this gives rise to the 2 corridors.

By analysing the pings received from B777 flights after the disappearance they were able to compare the MH370 signals and work out that the Doppler signature didn't match aircraft heading North.


Its not a lot of info but unfortunately its the most info anyone has on this incident.

I'm still not sure where the climb then dive info came from...military radar perhaps?

wil

sopretty wrote: »

So now they (Malaysian authorities) are saying that not only was 'all right good night' not the last communication uttered from the plane, but that they are still now investigating who spoke?????????

FFS

Sure you couldn't believe a word we've been fed from Malaysia at this point. I am now not surprised with the relatives' reactions.

There is something dodgy going on here. Whether it is mere incompetence or something more sinister, I don't know, but there is definitely reason to doubt every single thing the media has been told. It doesn't add up. None of it. And when things don't add up, it's usually for a reason.

You can hide a lot of sins under a haze of incompetence.

Hard to trust everything at face value.

I'd suspect that in the hours and days immediately after it went missing, there may have been a certain amount of checking going on.
Anyone who may not have dotted their i's or checked manifests properly, filled out maintenance sheets etc might be busy before the international investigators arrived.

Could explain differing accounts, slow dispersal of info as several layers of government management check everything issued to the media conforms, but not necessarily confirmed accurate.

That said, it's not unusual. Reading the government controlled media is an exercise in frustration and confusion at the best of times. They continuously leave out entirely necessary and relevant parts of news stories, change from one topic to another mid paragraph, or simply cut them short.

The company itself has been more often in the red than not, 2013 saw loss of 1.3bn RM (around 300m euro) and there seemed to be many cuts and changes in recent years. Also if it is typical of what I've seen before, they may have a lot of low paid staff who don't have a great deal to do.

I have seen a number of older Malaysian blogs questioning whether recent changes in MAS engineering management were in any way linked to an unusual number of technical problems in 2012 after an otherwise fairly unblemished history.

Sam Russell

Tenger wrote: »

If 2 satellites had of picked up teh ping then they could have narrowed down the location. They know the angle it bounced...this gives rise to the 2 corridors.

How did they know the angle? Do they have multiple aerials that can determine the angle by comparing the signal from each aerial? Why would they have such an arangement? It does not make sense.

By analysing the pings received from B777 flights after the disappearance they were able to compare the MH370 signals and work out that the Doppler signature didn't match aircraft heading North.

They are essentially a phone type system. How would they know the exact frequency used to send the (digital) ping and echo back? They are interested in the received signal, not its frequency deviation it might display. Do they actually have the facility to go back and analyse this after the event?

Its not a lot of info but unfortunately its the most info anyone has on this incident.

If one were of a suspicious mind, one would suspect a cover-up.

I'm still not sure where the climb then dive info came from...military radar perhaps?

My understanding is that info (altitude) is either given by the plane in secondary radar response, or it is gained by 3D (or nodding) radar. Do the Malay military have that equipment, and was it operational at the time?

Hmmm................. Just thinking .............

Dude111

lord lucan wrote:

Anymore personal abuse or name calling and this thread is getting locked. Please heed the Mod note in the 1st post.

Im amazed this thread is still open!

I see alot of stuff I shouldnt see for such an important topic!!

PLEASE MEMBERS: You can attack the IDEA someone has posted but please DO NOT ATTACK THEM!!


Thank you

sopretty

Ok, so the Malaysian police have confirmed now that there is a CRIMINAL investigation ongoing. Only the passengers have been cleared. The pilots and crew HAVE NOT been cleared.

Tenger

Sam Russell wrote: »

How did they know the angle? Do they have multiple aerials that can determine the angle by comparing the signal from each aerial? Why would they have such an arangement? It does not make sense.

.....................
My understanding is that info (altitude) is either given by the plane in secondary radar response, or it is gained by 3D (or nodding) radar. Do the Malay military have that equipment, and was it operational at the time?
.......

The Immarsat data was released separately from the Malay Govt. Only 1 satellite had signal but they know what angle it was sent from.


Re military radar...this is Primary radar.....ATC radar is called Secondart radar. Primary is based on actual skin paints while Secondary is based on transponder signal. Not sure what you mean by "3D radar"

and as is already evident...the Malay, Singaporean and Indonesian military set-up was not the best on the day in question.

goat2

could this aircraft have landed on some out of the way runway, since they have nothing concrete,
even the night before last there was a guy on that is not ruling out that it is on land, we do know people will do anything,
example, (suicide bombers)

andy_g

Dude111 wrote: »

Im amazed this thread is still open!

I see alot of stuff I shouldnt see for such an important topic!!

PLEASE MEMBERS: You can attack the IDEA someone has posted but please DO NOT ATTACK THEM!!


Thank you

Failing to observe post one, and questioning moderator action which is against the rules.

Banned for a week.

Bill G

So much disinformation on this thread....

Tenger wrote: »

The Immarsat data was released separately from the Malay Govt. Only 1 satellite had signal but they know what angle it was sent from.

No, they know the time it took (distance = r) from the satellite to the receiver. This gives them a sphere with a radius of r around the satellite. Where that sphere intersects the earth's surface gives them the "northern" and "southern" arcs we have all seen. No angles involved until you start talking about the doppler differences...

Re military radar...this is Primary radar.....ATC radar is called Secondart radar. Primary is based on actual skin paints while Secondary is based on transponder signal. Not sure what you mean by "3D radar"

No. ATC and military have both Primary (paint) and Secondary (transponder). The military radar would be much better at computing a speed and altitude from a primary return, since most enemy aircraft won't provide a transponder response....

Yael

In the previous posts I wrote about my theory – that claims all could have started because of problems or accident with dangerous cargo. I mentioned there was information online about a past accident in one of the Malaysian Airlines passengers plane. After the plane landed they found a leak of dangerous chemical shipment on board. And this ruined the plane.
So here is a link to a report on that -
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000315-0

The theory- script – as I posted before - deals with possible decision to get the plane as far away as possible. In such a scenario maybe certain parties who are involved in the event wouldn’t like the debris of the plane to be located. This scenario is also compatible with the fact that the plane kept flying until using all the fuel it was carrying.

Why did it take the Malaysian authorities several days to report the fact that plane turned back? They reported it after it was leaked to the press in the US.
If I got the information right – they searched the wrong place for a few days.

I don’t know. Any cover up by the authorities seems so unreal. Yet, there are many questions with the way the whole event has been handled the past few weeks.

SNAKEDOC

The worst story ive heard so far is the one that speculates that the plane landed in diago garcia following a hijacking by military types and a journalist on board took a photo with his iphone and sent it which some how pinged it on google as coming from diago garcia. Its crazy but some people will believe this junk.

SNAKEDOC

Yael wrote: »

In the previous posts I wrote about my theory – that claims all could have started because of problems or accident with dangerous cargo. I mentioned there was information online about a past accident in one of the Malaysian Airlines passengers plane. After the plane landed they found a leak of dangerous chemical shipment on board. And this ruined the plane.
So here is a link to a report on that -
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000315-0

The theory- script – as I posted before - deals with possible decision to get the plane as far away as possible. In such a scenario maybe certain parties who are involved in the event wouldn’t like the debris of the plane to be located. This scenario is also compatible with the fact that the plane kept flying until using all the fuel it was carrying.

A

Why did it take the Malaysian authorities several days to report the fact that plane turned back? They reported it after it was leaked to the press in the US.
If I got the information right – they searched the wrong place for a few days.

I don’t know. Any cover up by the authorities seems so unreal. Yet, there are many questions with the way the whole event has been handled the past few weeks.

So are you speculating that they flew the plane to be crashed to cover up incompitent safety measures or what. Its an interesting theory but a wrecked plane landing could be turned on its head as a heroic effort by both the airline and pilots if reported right. Lose of a plane and large passenger count i think is more of a desaster for the airline regardless of previous incidents. There are no senarios i can think of that an airline or its employees would deside that crashing the plane was more benificial than landing or even an attempted landing.
Also the story about the previous incident the airline was not at fault it was a company who mislabled canisters and they leaked destroying the planes interior cargo hold beyond repair. The beijing based company paid compo to the airline so i think the theory of sending the plane as far away as possible to prevent a likewise incident is a bit far fetched.

Yael

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

So are you speculating that they flew the plane to be crashed to cover up incompitent safety measures or what. Its an interesting theory but a wrecked plane landing could be turned on its head as a heroic effort by both the airline and pilots if reported right. Lose of a plane and large passenger count i think is more of a desaster for the airline regardless of previous incidents. There are no senarios i can think of that an airline or its employees would deside that crashing the plane was more benificial than landing or even an attempted landing.
Also the story about the previous incident the airline was not at fault it was a company who mislabled canisters and they leaked destroying the planes interior cargo hold beyond repair. The beijing based company paid compo to the airline so i think the theory of sending the plane as far away as possible to prevent a likewise incident is a bit far fetched.

I didn't write in this last post the whole theory - it's in the other two posts. In the theory, the plane may have become a dangerous environment-and a risk for the surroundings. I agree the theory is far-fetched. As I emphasized there - the theory I have is an imaginative theory , it's very sinister and could pass as a fiction script. You could develop the script more - like what happened on board, did people get hurt because of the dangerous cargo. But I don't want to go with this too far here.

I do think that maybe, the theory - as imaginative as it is- helps to focus on the questions.

I know the Airlines weren't to blame for the incident. I mentioned that also in previous post. I brought this story as an example of how problems with dangerous cargo may have real serious consequences. Also to show that it happened that a passenger plane carried very hazardous cargo - in the incident in year 2000 the shipment was declared falsely.

By the way, I just read yesterday that the investigators were checking if there might have been something wrong with the food on board that made it poisonous.

There are questions,and as time passes there are just more questions.

Sam Russell

Bill G wrote: »

So much disinformation on this thread....



No, they know the time it took (distance = r) from the satellite to the receiver. This gives them a sphere with a radius of r around the satellite. Where that sphere intersects the earth's surface gives them the "northern" and "southern" arcs we have all seen. No angles involved until you start talking about the doppler differences...



No. ATC and military have both Primary (paint) and Secondary (transponder). The military radar would be much better at computing a speed and altitude from a primary return, since most enemy aircraft won't provide a transponder response....

They quote (Inmarsat) that they 'know the angle' the signal came from. How? They quote it at 45 degrees. How accurate is that angle and what gave them that angle? There was only one satellite involved and unless they use a sophisticated aerial system (which they probably do), how do they know where the signal comes from? Just asking.

Radar, as seen at most airports, is a large dish rotating slowly. This type of radar uses an echo back from the plane (or object) that gives a plan view - no altitude. Embeded in that signal is a request to the plane to send secondary information. ATC relies of the return of this (secondary) signal from the aircraft (not an echo) that gives various flight information, including call sign, altitude, heading, speed, etc.). If this is turned off completely, all ATC see is a ping on the radar showing distance and angle from the radar. No altitude. To get altitude, they use a different radar that has a beam moving in the verticle direction, that instead of rotating, nods. Combine the two and you know position, height, and speed. Do all military radar sites have this?

folbotcar

Well the conspiracy theories are coming thick and fast now. The search for wreckage continues without result which of course adds fuel to the conspiracy theories. But the idea that it could have landed undetected particularly at a US military base full of civilians not to mention military personnel isn't exactly credible.

The cover up theories hardly bear scrutiny either. The Malaysians mishandled the whole affair for sure but you have to question why they would even have a reason to cover it up. The fact that the Chinese relatives think they're being lied to is more a reflection of their own country. China is a police state and the Chinese are used to being lied to and being watched. Naturally they think the rest of the world is like that.

Actually the lack of wreckage isn't that surprising. You only have to look at Hudson river ditching to see that it's possible to land in the water intact or relatively intact. Even if it's open sea. There seems to be an assumption that the jet flew on until it ran out of fuel. But if it was a pilot bent on suicide why wait that long? A controlled ditching or dive into the sea would make more sense.

My still favoured theory is still a hijacking gone wrong. Perhaps there was an intent for a 9/11 type attack somewhere that failed and the aircraft headed out to sea to be lost.

The chances are we'll never know unless something is washed up somewhere some day.

SNAKEDOC

I have thought about this incident every day since it happened and ran a lot of senarios in my head. The investigators im sure are doing the same hence the food thing being checked. But if the food was at fault surly that does not explain the comms being swithced off and why the plane turned around and kept flying.
My view is still hijacking by a crew member ie pilot or a group of hijackers posing as passengers with knowhow for turning off comms kit. However im still puzzled why there were no attempted communications from passengers after a possible hijacking took place like what happened on flight 93 on 9/11. This makes me think that the passengers were not aware of any problem right up until the end and that the pilot may have crashed the plane intentionally. This does have arguements too including where the cabin crew were and the first officer. Surely they were not all complicit in the plot. There are still way more questions than answers and unfortunatly no senario is standing out as a likely cause for the incident. I doubt the flight recorders can be found in time anyway before the becons go dead and in that case it will go down as a mystery which may never be solved.

Bill G

Sam Russell wrote: »

They quote (Inmarsat) that they 'know the angle' the signal came from. How? They quote it at 45 degrees. How accurate is that angle and what gave them that angle? There was only one satellite involved and unless they use a sophisticated aerial system (which they probably do), how do they know where the signal comes from? Just asking.

Radar, as seen at most airports, is a large dish rotating slowly. This type of radar uses an echo back from the plane (or object) that gives a plan view - no altitude. Embeded in that signal is a request to the plane to send secondary information. ATC relies of the return of this (secondary) signal from the aircraft (not an echo) that gives various flight information, including call sign, altitude, heading, speed, etc.). If this is turned off completely, all ATC see is a ping on the radar showing distance and angle from the radar. No altitude. To get altitude, they use a different radar that has a beam moving in the verticle direction, that instead of rotating, nods. Combine the two and you know position, height, and speed. Do all military radar sites have this?

Yes, Inmarsat "know" the angle by deriving it from the arcs. In other words, they compute the distance, figure out where that intersects the earth, and then compute the angle, not the other way around.

You are spot on with the radar. ATC primary only returns the slant range and bearing, so they rely on the secondary to give them altitude. Military primary would employ various techniques as you mentioned (nodding, phased array, etc) to give them altitude.

CaptainSkidmark

Its gone lads, never to be found!

Sam Russell

Bill G wrote: »

Yes, Inmarsat "know" the angle by deriving it from the arcs. In other words, they compute the distance, figure out where that intersects the earth, and then compute the angle, not the other way around.

You are spot on with the radar. ATC primary only returns the slant range and bearing, so they rely on the secondary to give them altitude. Military primary would employ various techniques as you mentioned (nodding, phased array, etc) to give them altitude.

With regard to Inmarsat, that makes sense. More sense than anything else. The dopler bit still puzzles me. It is a digital signal on a carrier. If they receive it, they discard the carrier and all other details of the transmission. (I would imagine). Maybe it was signal strength or signal quality that gave them the 'clues' as to which direction it came from. I would not think doppler has anything to do with it. It was only a ping, not a long transmission, and only once per hour - that is six pings in total.

Regarding radar, does anyone know (even the Malaysians) whether they have the capability to measure altitude from a passive response from their military radar? No further mention of that info about the plane climbing to 45,000 (above the ceiling for a B777 and the capability of a fully loaded B777 aircraft at that point on its flight) and the the rapid descent to 12,000ft (some report mentioned 5,000ft) and then back to 30,000ft. It all sounds suspicious of a cover-up or worse.

wil

My questions to aircraft engineers, pilots, industry insiders. In the event of a serious incident - eg a serious component failure, a crash / collision of any sort, other serious breach of security or serious risk to life or plane etc., what is supposed to happen immediately afterwards in terms of investigation?

Is everything frozen, investigation team enters, records pulled, all evidence bagged and labelled etc?
or
do things continue pretty much as usual until evidence is requested allowing the possibility that potential evidence is overwritten, lost etc.

In day to day operations, can a pilot instigate investigations on the basis of any personal concerns or is it pretty much down to electronic data analysis back at base.
Is there an international or supplier regulated enforceable set of criteria for allowed operating or safety parameters or is it down to national or individual airlines own internal QC?
Who audits any of this and who enforces anything?
Complicated questions, I know. (perhaps we need an ask a commercial passenger aviation specialist thread)

LordSutch

I think they should do a reconstruction of the southern flight path (as hypothesized) taking into account that the plane might have gone a lot slower than calculated, ergo the crash zone might be much further north than the current search quadrangle.

Just a thought.