Malaysia airlines plane may have crashed 239 people on board #20

[Steely Dan]

WARNING ALERT - No Malaysian press conference or statement today according to journalist's twitter account

Faizal ‏@f4izalhassan 4h

There wil be NO press conference and NO statement for #MH370 today.

NO Malaysian press conferences after April 7th it will be email statements only after this date according to several mainstream media twitter accounts.

The Malaysian Times ‏@TMalaysianTimes Apr 3

MH370: Media centre at PWTC shuts down effective Apr 8 http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/mh370-media-centre-at-pwtc-shuts-down-effective-apr-8/ …

I will update you all when I know if there is going to be an Australian press conference today and what time it is.

Thank you everyone for continuing to post links to articles, maps and your comments about developments. It is great that so many people here care about what happened to the people who were on MH370 and how it happened. Have a good weekend everyone.

Thank God, have a news conference when you finally find the damn plane!

 

[time]

Anwar Ibrahim has an interview with the Telegraph:

Malaysia's opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, tells The Telegraph that country's "sophisticated" radar would have detected the plane

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...adar-would-have-identified-missing-plane.html

"I believe the government know more than us. They have the authority to instruct the air force… or Malaysia Airlines. They are privy to most of these missing bits of information critical to our understanding of this mysterious disappearance of MH370."

MH370 Malaysia Airlines: Anwar Ibrahim says government purposefully concealing information

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ment-purposefully-concealing-information.html

In a wide-ranging interview that cast doubt on the official investigation into the disappearance of the plane, Anwar Ibrahim said the country’s “sophisticated” radar system would have identified it after it changed course and crossed back over Malaysia.

 

[Tiepos]

From article quoted in a post above:


I think we have been down this road before. I remember that statement from maybe a week ago now.

I remember it too. Something about the first time debris was spotted by one plane and then spotted again by a later plane, right?

Thanks for all the interesting links JerseyGirl.

This sounds discouraging. Im not sure what they mean except maybe that they are spotting so much structure and other objects that it makes it hard for them.

Its hard to believe there would be that much stuff under the water unless they mean lots of structure like rocks and cliffs.

We are dealing with an Ocean that is in many ways like a very massive watery dumping ground.

If they cannot make out floating debris (mainly because there is so much other debris everywhere), I feel that the odds of them being able to find anything below the surface is even more remote because there has to be twice the amount of debris at the bottom of the Ocean than it is floating.

I can believe there’s that much stuff floating under the water, I think that’s why it’s such a danger to marine life. The garbage (mostly plastics) gets ground up into tiny pieces and often floats just under, or sort of “hovers” in the water, which makes marine animals think they’re seeing small prey.

P_R is correct though - of all the garbage dumped into our oceans, almost 3/4 of it sinks to the bottom - and there are still thousands of tonnes of tiny bits (and larger bits) of plastics floating on or under the surface.

So gross.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Sure, blame it on the FOREIGN media! WTH, the misspokes have come from the MALAYSIAN media (fed by the Malaysian powers investigating)! I beginning to think that govemment officials in Malaysia who want 15 minutes of fame make ridiculous statements to the press.

newest report from Malaysia:

The local media should be proactive in repelling all negative and inaccurate reports by the foreign media regarding the Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 missing since March 8, said Malay Consultative Council (MPM) secretary-general, Datuk Dr Hasan Mad.

He said the move was essential to protect the country's image and to disseminate authentic and accurate information relating to the tragedy.

"In addition to balancing the inaccurate reporting by the foreign media, the local media also need to convey the message for Malaysians to unite and support the country's leadership during this difficult time," he told reporters at Wisma Bernama, here, today.


Read more: MH370 Tragedy: Local media need to dispel negative reports - Latest - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ispel-negative-reports-1.549262#ixzz2xvwTynhC

 

[time]

I want to add more to what Anwar is saying:

Anwar said it was "not only unacceptable but not possible, not feasible" that the plane had not been sighted by the Marconi radar system immediately after it changed course. The radar, he said, would have instantly detected the Boeing 777 as it travelled east to west across "at least four" Malaysian provinces.

Anwar said it was baffling the country's air force had remained silent, and claimed it "should take three minutes under [standard operating procedure] for the air force planes to go. And there was no response". He added: "We don't have the sophistication of the US or Britain but we have the capacity to protect our borders."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11232602

There is much more detailed info here about what equipment Malaysia had purchased, but too much to quote so here is the gist:

How did our fabulously expensive radar capabilities procured through the years fail on that fateful night on 8 March 2014?By trying to blame our failure to trace MH370 on inadequate radar facilities, Hishammuddin, who is also the defence minister of Malaysia, has tried to justify the need for more military procurements:

“Now when we bear in mind that in 2011 Malaysia claimed that there were 2,058 incidents of airspace violations by Singapore’s air force since 2008, how could they miss one MH370 on March 8?

Apart from the millions spent on our radar systems, MH370’s erratic route should have activated our Sukhois and F18s to be scrambled to prove their worth. Unfortunately, they were idle when they were most needed.

....And now, (Prime Minister) Najib Razak has got to find me the money to change our radar system because the whole world now knows our defence capabilities, in terms of radar.”

... Was all that expensive radar equipment wasted on the RMAF personnel who were sleeping on the job?

Or was it a case of yet another expensive military equipment that was not maintained properly?

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/i...-to-human-lapse-not-radar-incapacity&Itemid=2

 

[time]

Sure, blame it on the FOREIGN media! WTH, the misspokes have come from the MALAYSIAN media (fed by the Malaysian powers investigating)! I beginning to think that govemment officials in Malaysia who want 15 minutes of fame make ridiculous statements to the press.

newest report from Malaysia:

The local media should be proactive in repelling all negative and inaccurate reports by the foreign media regarding the Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 missing since March 8, said Malay Consultative Council (MPM) secretary-general, Datuk Dr Hasan Mad.

He said the move was essential to protect the country's image and to disseminate authentic and accurate information relating to the tragedy.

"In addition to balancing the inaccurate reporting by the foreign media, the local media also need to convey the message for Malaysians to unite and support the country's leadership during this difficult time," he told reporters at Wisma Bernama, here, today.


Read more: MH370 Tragedy: Local media need to dispel negative reports - Latest - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ispel-negative-reports-1.549262#ixzz2xvwTynhC

I see increasing frustration because they can't control this news story as much as is typical and many in Malaysia will not rally behind the government to 'unite'. What gets me is they think all negative reports should be repelled

 

[Tiepos]

“unite and support the country’s leadership” - EL OH EL!

They should have left it at “unite and support the country”.

 

[time]

Anwar: Malaysian radars capable of tracking MH370 to Indian Ocean

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/m...ars-capable-of-tracking-mh370-to-indian-ocean

Anwar, now the leader of Malaysia’s federal opposition, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an interview this morning that he had been the finance minister when Malaysia procured the Radar Marconi system.

He said with the system, Malaysia should have been able to detect the plane’s movement when it made the “air turnback” westwards, diverting off its original flight path to Beijing.

“They had the capability to detect any flight from the west — or from the east to the west coast, from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean,” he said, according to CNN’s report on the interview, which was aired at 3am local time.

 

[aa9511]

I want to add more to what Anwar is saying:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11232602

There is much more detailed info here about what equipment Malaysia had purchased, but too much to quote so here is the gist:


http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/i...-to-human-lapse-not-radar-incapacity&Itemid=2

But I can kind of see that it would have just been another blip on a whole screen of blips, YKWIM? And like the other official was saying in the link posted upthread, it was not coming in from outside into Malaysia. So I can see how they would not see it as a threat. Also, it was in a confusing zone, where maybe they thought Thailand was covering that plane on its radar, and since it was on a commercial flight path, they probably thought, no big deal. That was the whole point, IMO, of whoever was flying to go along the ATC border lines.

It does serve as a wake-up call though, for probably every single country. They need to make some changes, obviously, in how these planes are tracked on the radar screens, and how to determine exactly which country is tracking the plane.

I am not sure exactly how the radar and air traffic controls work. But for example, could they not "tag" planes to show someone conciously has it "under watch," and then the blip shows up color-coded in a certain color after its been tagged? Then whatever blips shown on screen that are in a different color, means no one is "watching" that plane.

For example, Malaysia Air control "tags" 370 as its flying northeast towards Beijing. Let's pick a color, say Red. So the blip shows up as Red on everyone's screens who can see it. Then, when it gives the command "370, please contact Ho Chi Minh City," then it "untags" the plane. So the blip reverts to "untagged" color, let's say Green. So now the blip is Green.

When Ho Chi Minh takes over the duties of watching the plane, it "tags" it Red. The blip goes back to Red to show that someone is conciously keeping track of it.

In this case, Ho Chi Minh never got a hold of 370. 370 never contacted Ho Chi Minh. Malaysia had already "untagged" it, so it shoudl have showed up as Green on any country's radar screens (like Thailand and Malaysia).

So now, 370 is going back across Malaysia, and it's also being picked up by Thailand's air space. In both of those screens, it's going to show up Green. Meaning no one is watching it. So immediately, Malaysia would see that something is wrong. Thailand would see that something is wrong. Thailand woudl contact Malaysia - hey do you see the Green blip? What happened?

Malaysia, says I don't know. Malaysia then goes and checks with other countries' ATC, like Singapore and Vietnam. Says, hey do you have a plane that hasn't checked in with you?

Anyway, they would VERY SHORTLY figure out they need fighter jets up there to check out this Green untagged blip.

JMO.

 

[Hatfield]

I just had a thought:

So if they have the time when the plane ran out of fuel (partial handshake). IIUC, if no one was piloting the plane, it would have gone down close to there. If someone was piloting the plane at that time, it could have glided. But let's just say - around that area (where partial handshake happened).

So what they have to do is determine, obviously, where this partial handshake occured.

For that, they need to know things about the plane like speed and altitude and how much fuel was in the plane when it went on auto-pilot.

So, first thing:

How much fuel was in the plane at the time person put it on auto-pilot. :

What I think they should do is, get a similar 777, load it up with exact fuel amount that 370 was loaded with. Put a pilot in it, have the pilot follow the EXACT course that they think 370 took up until where they believe it made the final turn South. In other words, plot out exact route investigators believe, using all existing data points that they have. If the altitude changes are verifiable, include those altitude changes. Use whatever and all data points they have which are sound and verified.

So that course would go up northeast, turn west, follow waypoints out of Malaysian ATC.

THEN, at the precise point that the plane goes out of Malaysian ATC, after the last waypoint, CAPTURE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF FUEL LEFT.

Next,

Speed and Altitude:

Now using the amount of fuel measurement they got, take this amount, and plug it into the equation, to get the plane somewhere on the Southern arc by 8:11 and to get the fuel to run out 8 minutes after that point.

It might be that they get a few results - depending on if they plug in some different speeds and altitudes.

But at least that way you have narrowed down search area significantly - now you only have these few possible areas where the plane could be.

IDK, maybe??

Its a good idea. It should give them lots of good data if they do that. They should be able to match up the pings with that "arc" to see if the pings match what they already have. If not they could move the plane east + west to get a good match on ping signal strength.

They could also have some escort planes flying along to look under the plane at the water level and use it as a search for debris. Why not try to at least search along the path of the plane. Kind of like I was mentioning the other day. Have about 10 planes go "arm to arm" and start from the starting point of left turn and head south at where they think is closest to path.

It sure would not hurt to try that. If they had about 10 planes 1 mile apart they could cover a 10 mile swatch path going south. The ping signal strength should help them determine if they are East or West enough.

They would not have to be too close together because the debris has spread out already so I do think 1 mile apart is plenty to spot some debris. 10 planes 1 mile apart with a 10 mile swatch of looking. Then keep going back and forth for a few days. Within 1 week they could cover 70 miles width and check the whole entire flight path from north to south.

 

[aa9511]

Its a good idea. It should give them lots of good data if they do that. They should be able to match up the pings with that "arc" to see if the pings match what they already have. If not they could move the plane east + west to get a good match on ping signal strength.
They could also have some escort planes flying along to look under the plane at the water level and use it as a search for debris. Why not try to at least search along the path of the plane. Kind of like I was mentioning the other day. Have about 10 planes go "arm to arm" and start from the starting point of left turn and head south at where they think is closest to path.

It sure would not hurt to try that. If they had about 10 planes 1 mile apart they could cover a 10 mile swatch path going south. The ping signal strength should help them determine if they are East or West enough.

They would not have to be too close together because the debris has spread out already so I do think 1 mile apart is plenty to spot some debris. 10 planes 1 mile apart with a 10 mile swatch of looking. Then keep going back and forth for a few days. Within 1 week they could cover 70 miles width and check the whole entire flight path from north to south.

bbm


Yes, excellent ideas. I'm especially intrigued by the bolded part. I had forgotten about the other pings, and that is a GREAT IDEA!!!!

So how about, they send the plane up one time to measure the fuel used up until it passed the last waypoint (Igari) and flew out of Malaysian radar. That would be the most probably point when the plane turned to fly South direction.

Using the measurement for how much fuel was left in the plane at that point, Inmarsat engineers come up with a few possible flight paths.

Next, start the plane at the South turnaround point, and have it begin to follow one of the flight paths. After a ping or two (2 hours), they should know whether that is the correct flight path or not (based on comparing pings of the Test Plane to the pings of 370).

If it's not the correct path, turn the plane back around, and start the plane one of the other possible paths. Repeat the same procedure.

I honestly do not think they could have that many possible flight paths, since the plane had to be on a point on the arc at 8:11, AND it had to run out of fuel 8 minutes later.

So even if it takes 10 tries by the TEST plane before the pings match up with the pings received from 370, it would be IMO, much better way of finding the flight path than sending out ships and planes to check LARGE area of a churning ocean. Even if it's 15 tries - ok let's say it takes 2 pings to determine if the pings match up or not - that's 2 hours for each test flight. 2 hours going and 2 hours coming back to the starting point - so that's 4 hours per test. 15 tests x 4hrs/test = 60 hrs. Working 8 hours a day, they could gather ALL data in about 8 days.

And of course, what if the ACTUAL flight path is one of the first ones the test planes take - let's say the 3rd test run. 3x4=12. They could have the final crash site within 12 hours.

Am I missing something??? Why aren't they doing this???

JMO.

 

[dotr]

Search for missing Malaysia Airlines plane goes underwater - YouTube

 

[aa9511]

Hatfield, I cannot wrap my head around why they haven't tried this???? (what we were discussing earlier).

Insmarsat engineers already used the strategy of comparing 370's pings to the pings of other similar planes who have taken similar flight paths.

How could they have missed this seemingly obvious idea, which would combine information they already have, with strategies they have already used??

They could have a very accurate fuel reading at the South turn if they test it out in a plane using same route and using altitude changes that they captured. (From Kuala Lumpur to South turn).

Combine this fuel reading, with the given points they have, 8:11 somewhere on arc, and plane running out of fuel 8 minutes after that arc. They have the number of hours the plane was in the air. They would have very close Fuel measurement of the plane starting at the left turn. They know what time the plane was on the arc (8:11), and after how many hours of flying that way. They have the time when the plane ran out of fuel and would have crashed somewhere around that area.

As I said earlier, I honestly don't think they could get very many possible flight paths which would fit with all of their given data points.

So they get a few possible flight paths.

Next step, take the test plane out beginning at South turn. Compare pings of Test plane to pings received from 370 (for first couple of hours/pings). Refine. Take plane on another possible flight path. Compare pings. Refine. Tkae on another possible flight path. Compare pings. Refine.

Eventually, and within not a lot of time (relatively), they will get the accurate flight path.

From there, just see where the plane would end up, that is around the area where it crashed.

JMO.

JMO.

 

[Hatfield]

Hatfield, I cannot wrap my head around why they haven't tried this???? (what we were discussing earlier).

Insmarsat engineers already used the strategy of comparing 370's pings to the pings of other similar planes who have taken similar flight paths.

How could they have missed this seemingly obvious idea, which would combine information they already have, with strategies they have already used??

They could have a very accurate fuel reading at the South turn if they test it out in a plane using same route and using altitude changes that they captured. (From Kuala Lumpur to South turn).

Combine this fuel reading, with the given points they have, 8:11 somewhere on arc, and plane running out of fuel 8 minutes after that arc. They have the number of hours the plane was in the air. They would have very close Fuel measurement of the plane starting at the left turn. They know what time the plane was on the arc (8:11), and after how many hours of flying that way. They have the time when the plane ran out of fuel and would have crashed somewhere around that area.

As I said earlier, I honestly don't think they could get very many possible flight paths which would fit with all of their given data points.

So they get a few possible flight paths.

Next step, take the test plane out beginning at South turn. Compare pings of Test plane to pings received from 370 (for first couple of hours/pings). Refine. Take plane on another possible flight path. Compare pings. Refine. Tkae on another possible flight path. Compare pings. Refine.

Eventually, and within not a lot of time (relatively), they will get the accurate flight path.

From there, just see where the plane would end up, that is around the area where it crashed.

JMO.

JMO.

Exactly. I see no reason why this approach would not work and give them a much better set of data to figure out where plane ended up.

It seems they have based everything on calculations anyway but why not send up a real plane and watch and learn what it does as far as fuel usage and the way the pings behave with that "arc".

Sometimes I wonder if they just get caught up in what they are doing and are not thinking outside the box.

 

[Isabelle]

Exactly. I see no reason why this approach would not work and give them a much better set of data to figure out where plane ended up.

It seems they have based everything on calculations anyway but why not send up a real plane and watch and learn what it does as far as fuel usage and the way the pings behave with that "arc".

Sometimes I wonder if they just get caught up in what they are doing and are not thinking outside the box.

Sound likes a genius idea. Now how can you get this to authorities? Maybe call the Australian base operations in Perth? Or maybe Angus Houston has an email addy set up. Definitely worth a try!!!

 

[time]

But I can kind of see that it would have just been another blip on a whole screen of blips, YKWIM? And like the other official was saying in the link posted upthread, it was not coming in from outside into Malaysia. So I can see how they would not see it as a threat. <snip>.

But it was coming in from basically the ocean and officially Vietnamese airspace at that point. Further though, I don't understand why a plane that is on a flight path, even if a known one, is not flagged if it isn't supposed to be there. And, it seems to me they are basically claiming they knew it was unusual, just not a threat?! It also seems it would spur some immediate response to alert the govt and the airline officials/control tower/whatever.

 

[aa9511]

Exactly. I see no reason why this approach would not work and give them a much better set of data to figure out where plane ended up.

It seems they have based everything on calculations anyway but why not send up a real plane and watch and learn what it does as far as fuel usage and the way the pings behave with that "arc".

Sometimes I wonder if they just get caught up in what they are doing and are not thinking outside the box.

I was just thinking about this idea as I was doing some things, and thought about well, the fuel usage would be different since it wouldn't have the cargo and passengers.

But how about they just load some cargo in it?? Surely that would be very easy and cost-effective relative to what, 30 high-tech, military ships and planes? Not to mention the submarines. Multi-million dollar ships and planes and submarines?? The cost and work involved in sending all of those out day after day after day. **not sure if I got the number of planes and ships right, I'm just "thinking aloud."**

Surely they have the total weight of all the cargo which was loaded onto 370.

Just load in some things to come close to that weight.

Then estimate the combined weight of the passengers, and load something on equal to that estimated weight.

Load the fuel equal to 370 at starting point.

Nothing about it seems very complicated to me.

ITA with what you said.

I don't know what they're doing now. For example, to get to the amount of fuel used going from Kuala Lumpur to the Igari waypoint, they will have to somehow account for take-off, for the turns the plane made, for the altitude changes the plane made, and for any variance in flight path (slight turns). It's not as simple as just calculating fuel used per hour, and then plugging in the number in some equation. Because we know that the plane made significant turns and supposedly, also altitude changes.

Much simpler to just send out a test plane with about same amount of cargo/weight and exact amount of fuel.

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

But it was coming in from basically the ocean and officially Vietnamese airspace at that point. Further though, I don't understand why a plane that is on a flight path, even if a known one, is not flagged if it isn't supposed to be there. And, it seems to me they are basically claiming they knew it was unusual, just not a threat?! It also seems it would spur some immediate response to alert the govt and the airline officials/control tower/whatever.

Good points.

 

[21merc7]

I don't know if a test plane would work, but I like the idea!

The blips on radar do have more info than blips. At least according to the very many plane crashes I've been freaking myself out with, trying to understand. That info is not made public, may not be made public for many years after some sort of resolution, and I hope they do take time on the resolution. I could be wrong, and someone more in the know will come along and fix it if I am.

The test flight issue lies in the ability to perfect something that is unknown. I am certain many are working on it in simulators as we speak. However, the specifics are missing, at least for us - the public. Those in the know are working on it, no way they cannot be. Simulators are used to not risk lives or expensive planes, and seem to be widely accepted legally and by pilots for plane crashes, so that is that. Too big an issue, too many countries involved, too many people not to, too much money invested now and future (whatever money is).

All back to the salty shaker, but I do know, not just think or believe, that all the above is being constantly worked on.

 

[Momoffourboys]

MH370 conspiracy: Bung wants Anwar to prove claim


The entire article is purely political. The only point that stands out to me is this:


&#8220;If they simply release information, other countries will condemn us,&#8221; he added.



http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ca...0-conspiracy-bung-wants-anwar-to-prove-claim/