I think it says millions
The total amount of claims paid to the next of kin to date stands at approximately RM14.2 million out of a total exposure of RM18.7 million"
So, it would be about $4.5 million. But that's a total not to one individual.
Malaysia airlines 370 with 239 people on board, 8 March 2014 #25
- Thread starter gregjrichards
- Start date
- Status
I think it says millions
The total amount of claims paid to the next of kin to date stands at approximately RM14.2 million out of a total exposure of RM18.7 million"
So, it would be about $4.5 million. But that's a total not to one individual.
pocoloco
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2014
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
Near-conclusive evidence that Malaysia Airlines MH370 was hijacked: cockpit tampering deliberately hid plane from radar
Some good points, but once again we won't know until the either the wreckage is found or someone claims responsibility.
Everyone wants to say they know "this" or they know "that" but truth is we won't truly know.
Some good points, but once again we won't know until the either the wreckage is found or someone claims responsibility.
Everyone wants to say they know "this" or they know "that" but truth is we won't truly know.
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
mln = million
ElleElle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 33
Wasn't there reports that MH370 did not have proper "tuning" for certain controls such of ELT and diagnosing water impact etc.?
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,970
- Reaction score
- 183,254
Fair enough. But you did ask for an explanation of the logic of why the plane flew SE then SW. Just pointing out that they are not saying the plane flew SE then SW, and that their logic is found in their report and the transcript.
Mr. Noatak
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 3
My opinions only, no facts here:
I want to address a few of the very recent posts:
This has nothing to do with the posters, but everything to do with the info that we are being spoon-fed from various semi-official sources.
The four ELT's on board MH-370 could not all be turned off from the cockpit. I am not sure that even one of them could have been turned off from the cockpit. Further, the ELT's should have nothing to do with ACARS. Turning off ACARS/SATCOM should not affect the ELT's. And even further- the reason there were no ELT signals from the Air France crash is because that plane disintegrated and sank. In order for ELT's to transmit, they must be above the waterline (ELT's have nothing to do with Black Box pingers that transmit sonar signals from underwater). IF MH-370 hard-landed on the Indian Ocean and remained intact, one or more of the four ELT's should have been singing like a canary and transmitting the exact location to satellite. The "Silence of the ELT's" is one of several conundrums regarding the MH-370 mystery.
Malaysian Airlines subscribed to engine-health monitoring via ACARS, with SATCOM provided by Inmarsat. This is why Rolls-Royce in Great Britain received two engine health messages before MH-370 disappeared from transponder radar. In order to disable ACARS, both VHF and SATCOM must be disabled. But if SATCOM was disabled, how could MH-370 continue to handshake with a satellite for hour after hour? Is there some way to manually turn off just the engine health monitoring portion of SATCOM? There had better be, because no engine health messages were sent after the transponder quit working. It almost seems as if (surprise, surprise!) the engines fell silent at about the same time that everything else and everyone aboard fell silent.
We already know the transponder quit working. That hides you from civilian radar. After that, turning off power serves no purpose at all- Military radar can detect any large metal object flying in the air. That is the basic principle of original radar. I do not profess to know why this latest story about shutting down power systems has surfaced; I just want to point out that this supposedly occurred around the same time that the apocryphal handshake occurred between the First Officer's phone and the mainland cell tower.
One final comment- the talking heads are saying generic statements like "well we know this didn't happen and that didn't happen, because the plane flew on for seven hours". How quickly we forget. We have a theory (Inmarsat pings) based upon a never-tried before model that has somehow evolved to become the "foundation fact" that all other theorists must accept, or face ridicule and banishment. This is a logical non sequitur, in that some talking-heads are saying, in effect: "we know that this unproven theory is a fact, so we do not want to hear about YOUR unproven theories"!
I want to address a few of the very recent posts:
This has nothing to do with the posters, but everything to do with the info that we are being spoon-fed from various semi-official sources.
The four ELT's on board MH-370 could not all be turned off from the cockpit. I am not sure that even one of them could have been turned off from the cockpit. Further, the ELT's should have nothing to do with ACARS. Turning off ACARS/SATCOM should not affect the ELT's. And even further- the reason there were no ELT signals from the Air France crash is because that plane disintegrated and sank. In order for ELT's to transmit, they must be above the waterline (ELT's have nothing to do with Black Box pingers that transmit sonar signals from underwater). IF MH-370 hard-landed on the Indian Ocean and remained intact, one or more of the four ELT's should have been singing like a canary and transmitting the exact location to satellite. The "Silence of the ELT's" is one of several conundrums regarding the MH-370 mystery.
Malaysian Airlines subscribed to engine-health monitoring via ACARS, with SATCOM provided by Inmarsat. This is why Rolls-Royce in Great Britain received two engine health messages before MH-370 disappeared from transponder radar. In order to disable ACARS, both VHF and SATCOM must be disabled. But if SATCOM was disabled, how could MH-370 continue to handshake with a satellite for hour after hour? Is there some way to manually turn off just the engine health monitoring portion of SATCOM? There had better be, because no engine health messages were sent after the transponder quit working. It almost seems as if (surprise, surprise!) the engines fell silent at about the same time that everything else and everyone aboard fell silent.
We already know the transponder quit working. That hides you from civilian radar. After that, turning off power serves no purpose at all- Military radar can detect any large metal object flying in the air. That is the basic principle of original radar. I do not profess to know why this latest story about shutting down power systems has surfaced; I just want to point out that this supposedly occurred around the same time that the apocryphal handshake occurred between the First Officer's phone and the mainland cell tower.
One final comment- the talking heads are saying generic statements like "well we know this didn't happen and that didn't happen, because the plane flew on for seven hours". How quickly we forget. We have a theory (Inmarsat pings) based upon a never-tried before model that has somehow evolved to become the "foundation fact" that all other theorists must accept, or face ridicule and banishment. This is a logical non sequitur, in that some talking-heads are saying, in effect: "we know that this unproven theory is a fact, so we do not want to hear about YOUR unproven theories"!
This video does NOT show any evidence about what happened to flight MH370.
If people THINK they see anything about a huge plane, then THAT merely reflects the
thoughts in their own imagination ... & is more revealing about their own personality ...
rather than any physical evidence regarding a commercial jetliner weighing about 650,000 pounds.
Try & take this video into a court of law to use it as evidence of a criminal act
& you will quickly be laughed out of court !
I am a practical person without a vivid imagination, so I see a pilot who has gone
through another one of the many, many security checks he has experienced in his
over 30 years as a pilot with Malaysia Airlines.
This video is NOT evidence of any wrong-doing. If a survey was done,
showing 100 pilots going through similar security checks & then
the observers were asked to pick out the only ONE who caused harm to a plane
... the results would show absolutely no concensus on the correct culprit.
Bottom line ... those people who WANT to try & read the mind of a total stranger & come back with
a result of criminal intent ... are using their imagination to project their own thoughts outward.
I happen to agree with you that many of the newspaper headlines, journalist choose to
emphasize the more sensational aspects of the story, in order to sell more newspapers.
However, readers must also be diligent to evaluate the statements made by anonymous sources.
If you think an experienced pilot should be disregarded because he is titled a "talking head",
then what title do you ascribe to the opinions of anonymous Websleuths posters have ?
Unfortunately we are unaware whether the opinions stated here,
come from a place of education & experience ... or elsewhere.
In order to counteract this disadvantage, as I understand it, Websleuths
has a policy that a poster should back up their statements with references.
Such a policy aids other posters in evaluating the veracity of the statements made.
This sounds to me like a very tentative statment ...
Can you please provide a reference that backs up your supposition ?
On the other hand, I DID provide a reference in message #96 here,
where a retired pilot with many years of experience at Malaysia airlines
claimed that in order to function properly, the ELT required ACARS.
Since I am unaware of your personal background, it would be most helpfull
if you could please provide another reference from an experienced individual,
towards clarifing if there is a problem with the claim made by THIS pilot.
I have NOT read anyone state that they think that MH370 hard landed on top of the
Indian Ocean intact & remained floating. So I am confused at to why you bring up this
unlikely possibility ??? Everything I have read says that it sank under the water.
ACARS stands for "Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System".
If you suppose that ELT is not using ACARS, then can you please tell me
which communications system, an ELT uses to broadcast the locater frequency ?
I think you have misunderstood the workings of the Rolls Royce engine health maintenance PLANS.
They offer more than one option. ALL commercial planes have engines monitored automatically through ACARS.
IF & ONLY IF the airlines decides to pay extra for the advanced engine health maintenance plan
THEN Rolls Royce would monitor further ... would that be through SATCOM ???
In message #43 here I provided an MSM reference saying that Malaysian Airlines divulged that they
did NOT pay the required subscription fee for the advanced engine health maintenance plan ...
Can you please provide a reference for this statement ?
I have NEVER read that SATCOM was disabled !
I personally think ACARS & SATCOM are 2 different systems.
The pilot has access to ACARS ... but please enlighten me if a pilot has access to SATCOM.
My reading has indicated that SATCOM is located in a separate computer on top of the plane.
In my opinion, this statement reflects a misunderstanding about which part
of the Inmarsat data is FACT & which part of the Inmarsat data is THEORY.
One can argue about the theoretical location of the plane because that is questionable,
BUT the fact that the handshakes occurred is a reality.
Excluding location, can you please explain EXACTLY what you think is theory
about the satellite communicating with an airborne MH370 at these UTC times below
which were reflected in 2 separate computers (Inmarsat & ground station) ...
2014/03/7 @18:40:56.354 IOR-3730-21000 IOR 305 6 C-Channel RX 0x30 -
Call Progress - Channel Release 90 19:41 - Handshake Request, with response take-off
2014/03/7 @19:41:02.906 IOR-R1200-0-36ED IOR 305 4 R-Channel RX 0x15 -
Log-on/Log-off Acknowledge 111 11500 20:41 - Handshake Request, with response
2014/03/7 @20:41:04.904 IOR-R1200-0-36ED IOR 305 4 R-Channel RX 0x15 -
Log-on/Log-off Acknowledge 141 11740 21.41 - Handshake Request, with response
2014/03/7 @21:41:26.905 IOR-R1200-0-36ED IOR 305 4 R-Channel RX 0x15 -
Log-on/Log-off Acknowledge 168 12780 22:41 - Handshake Request, with response
2014/03/8 @00:10:59.928 IOR-R1200-0-36ED IOR 305 4 R-Channel RX 0x15 -
Log-on/Log-off Acknowledge 252 18040 00:19:29 -
Log-On Request (reported as a Partial Handshake), initiated from the aircraft terminal
2014/03/8 @00:19:29.416 IOR-R600-0-36F8 IOR 305 10 R-Channel RX 0x10 -
Log-on Request (ISU)/Log-on Flight Information (SSU) 182 23000
2014/03/8 @00:19:37.443 IOR-R1200-0-36F6 IOR 305 10 R-Channel RX 0x15 -
Log-on/Log-off Acknowledge -2 49660
This fact means that MH370 was STILL flying at 8am MYT. The only part logical people
can argue about, is the theory about WHERE the plane went down AFTER that time.
Rhyolite has mentioned that Inmarsat theory could be affected by the heat of a fire.
In my personal opinion, heat would alter the location by hundreds of miles,
but not thousands of mile ... however that is debatable.
So in summary, a plane going down at 8am MYT in the Maldives or Andaman Islands
remains a small possibility ... but a plane going down anywhere at 3am MYT
is NOT a possibility given the satellite evidence in existence at 8am MYT.
Is it just me? I don't see anything unusual
I agree with your assessment. However as I previously mentioned, some people
read things (which come from their own mind) into the video ... for instance,
I have read that some people think the pilot is guilty because
they think he is looking at the camera. Other people think he is guilty
because they read into the way he brings down his arms as saying
"That is the last time I am going to have to go through a security check".
All very subjective & in no way proof of anything.
Thanks for the explanation about "mln" ... I have never before seen it abbreviated like that.
I thought it said "min" for minimum, or else it had to do something with the Malyasian currency name.
Tulessa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 23,016
- Reaction score
- 3,514
I get absolutely nothing out of that video.
This is an interesting video at Australia's only 777 flight simulator depicting MH370's trip.
It shows how easy it would have been to push all the necessary buttons ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAnTQ0xb0pA
Watch Flight MH370 simulator--So Interesting !!!!!-- Will we ever know what happened ?
It shows how easy it would have been to push all the necessary buttons ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAnTQ0xb0pA
Watch Flight MH370 simulator--So Interesting !!!!!-- Will we ever know what happened ?
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,970
- Reaction score
- 183,254
What a chilling video! I hope that the passengers and crew were hypoxiated while all this was happening. Pure terror!
It has made me wonder, though, what the electrical circuitry is like in a 777. I presume that different areas/functions are on different electrical circuits much like your homes electrical system is on different circuits and when one circuit blows/fries it does not mean that all the circuits blow.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,970
- Reaction score
- 183,254
Me either.
In fact, I notice that the pilot and co-pilot were patted down. I have followed flight crew through security at the airport and they were not patted down. They were treated the same as others going through security.
SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,970
- Reaction score
- 183,254
So many things can go wrong on a plane. This incident yesterday is a good example of something that could affect the electrical system IMO. Not saying that this is what happened, but who knows what made things go wrong?
"A Qantas flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne was turned back about an hour into the 14-hour flight after water started gushing down the aisle into economy from a leaking pipe in business class."
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...ck-after-water-pipe-leaks-20140702-zstzf.html
“It was the most scary thing I’ve ever seen, because I’m not a great flier anyway, so it was like, ‘well there shouldn’t be water in an electrical thing in the air,’ so that kind of scared me,” she said.
http://ktla.com/2014/07/02/qantas-plane-returns-to-lax-after-water-starts-leaking-mid-flight/
And this from an incident in 2010 ...
"A water leak in the galley of a Qantas 747 jumbo jet knocked out electricity to a series of systems during a flight to Bangkok, leaving pilots just minutes to land on battery power.
Water flooding in the galley knocked out three of the four on-board power generators, including all AC-powered systems, as the plane was on descent 25 kilometres from Bangkok airport."
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...tems-report-20101213-18v2a.html#ixzz36MHclGig
"A Qantas flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne was turned back about an hour into the 14-hour flight after water started gushing down the aisle into economy from a leaking pipe in business class."
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...ck-after-water-pipe-leaks-20140702-zstzf.html
“It was the most scary thing I’ve ever seen, because I’m not a great flier anyway, so it was like, ‘well there shouldn’t be water in an electrical thing in the air,’ so that kind of scared me,” she said.
http://ktla.com/2014/07/02/qantas-plane-returns-to-lax-after-water-starts-leaking-mid-flight/
And this from an incident in 2010 ...
"A water leak in the galley of a Qantas 747 jumbo jet knocked out electricity to a series of systems during a flight to Bangkok, leaving pilots just minutes to land on battery power.
Water flooding in the galley knocked out three of the four on-board power generators, including all AC-powered systems, as the plane was on descent 25 kilometres from Bangkok airport."
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...tems-report-20101213-18v2a.html#ixzz36MHclGig
Rhyolite
Inactive
Same here, Why people see stuff where there is nothing is beyond me. This poor flight crew has been vilified by the media, in particular the London Daily Mail.
It looks to me like the copilot does about the same thing as the pilot. Nothing looks off about it.
Ringgits! Ugh, I remember when I lived there I had to translate those in to dollars daily.... and the amount changes from day to day or month to month.
This is one reason I think it could have been taken over by someone else on board... no matter where it ended up!
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
the article linked mentioned "million" several times
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Malaysia airlines plane may have crashed 239 people on board #25
- Status