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

[ElleElle]

Does it seem a little weird that Diego Garcia, with its apparent high-powered long-range radar and capabilities, can't track exactly where MH370 fell off the radar?

Maybe these theories hold some weight?

:dunno:

"MH370 could have been kidnapped to get to the technical brain-trust on board - 20 Freescale Semiconductor employees travelling to China. Freescale attracted attention because it is a Texas-based technology firm that develops components for hi-tech weapons systems and aircraft navigation among other things."

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_...p-secret-US-military-base-media-reports-8550/


"One of the most popular is that the plane was diverted by CIA operatives masquerading as passengers to the US military installation in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
According to the theory, cargo in the plane was related to the technology of unmanned drone flights."

http://www.standard.net.au/story/21...ared-but-crew-still-under-microscope/?cs=2452


ETA: Not that I like to think about this, because that would mean that Australia may be complicit too.

BBM ~ Honestly, with all the technology and "military" radar, do you really believe a pilot would ditch his plane.

At the moment, i'm 50/50 between mechanical failure and "deliberate action".

Ask me tomorrow again. :scared:

 

[Amee]

April 05, 2014 1:15PM

“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues to refine the area where the aircraft entered the water based on continuing ground-breaking and multi-disciplinary technical analysis of satellite communication and aircraft performance, passed from the international air crash investigative team comprising analysts from Malaysia, the United States, the UK, China and Australia,” the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) said in a statement.

http://www.news.com.au/world/race-a...nes-flight-mh370/story-fndir2ev-1226875211181

 

[ElleElle]

No, IMO, the issue is precisely how far it could have gone.

Also, it is hard to calculate fuel usage, IMO, when you have a plane with a certain weight of cargo in it, you have sharp turns (at least two), you have take-off, and you have possible alitude changes. IMO, they need to try to re-create the plane and route (up until South turn) of that night, and then test out fuel usage on exactly that plane.

So now back to my first point - the issue is precisely how far it could have gone:

****For all of this, I am beginning at the South turn, where I think it was set on auto-pilot.

-they know how long the plane was flying for
-they know it had to be somewhere on the arc at 8:11
-I am fairly certain they know that the 8:19 ping is when the plane signalled that engines ran out of fuel. So plane ran out of fuel 8 minutes after passing the arc.
-What they need is as close of an estimation as



sible to the real amount of fuel 370 had beginning at the South turn.

The point is that they need to find out where on that arc the plane passed over. And to do that, they need to know how much fuel the plane was working with (to narrow down the possibilities on the arc).

*****I am doing all of this for South arc, b/c I do believe they are certain the plane went on the South arc path.

JMO.

This is they way I see it:

1. MA will not release cargo manifest, huge for me since I deal with this on a daily basis.
2. Fuel? Tons of discrepancies around fuel. A. How much was needed to Beijing? B. How much needed to crash in the S. Indian ocean? The sharp u-turn tells me the aircraft was heading back to KL.
3. WTH aren't aircraft equipped with GPS?

 

[ElleElle]

Figuring out the fuel usage for the plane would be difficult because like you said, you'd have to take into account the cargo weight. Plus, passenger weight and their carry-ons. Then there's the altitude changed (that may or not have happened).

It would be quite a difficult test...

And the fact MA cannot produce cargo manifests. JMO.

 

[ilovepierre]

There are a few problems with your plan as I see it:

1: Figuring out the fuel consumed up until the turn won’t tell them the fuel used for the rest of the flight, which is the greatest unknown and would be a huge determining factor in how long the plane could have remained in the air. We only assume that the plane flew at a constant altitude (what was that altitude?) and on a constant heading after it was lost from radar.

2: In order to figure out the fuel consumed on the rest of the flight, they would have to exactly recreate the conditions of that flight, which would mean it would crash somewhere in the Indian Ocean as well. Sure, they might have a better idea where MH370 ended up, but now they’d have two planes to recover…


I think you are both underestimating the ability to closely estimate the fuel consumption based on the factors they do know, AND you are overestimating the ability to gain more useful insight from recreating the flight up until the turn. There are too many pieces of information missing to make an attempt at actual recreation of the event an efficient use of time or resources.

I am almost certain that they can use a digital simulation to have the same effect and learn the same things.

BBM.
I think they did do digital simulations.
At least that's what I thought the whole purpose of the simulations on CNN were about.

 

[ElleElle]

But do you really think if they could put this together so quickly, they'd have chosen to look for a needle in a haystack by searching the ocean? I mean, all the investigators from these countries would have to be too dumb to have thought this before you. There's clearly more to it. No one wants to search an ocean for weeks.

Perhaps they want us to believe it is an analogy of "an eyelash in swimming pool" hunt.

Seriously, there are in my mind, legitimate witnesses (oil rig guy, fisherman etc.) that got put to sleep quickly early in the investigation.

I believe we are being led down a rose garden path. JMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM ~ Honestly, with all the technology and "military" radar, do you really believe a pilot would ditch his plane.

At the moment, i'm 50/50 between mechanical failure and "deliberate action".

Ask me tomorrow again. :scared:

Hi ElleElle …. no, I don’t think the pilot ditched his plane. The comment that you bolded was a theory (not mine), from the link below it, about the possibility of the plane having been diverted to Diego Garcia.

 

[Momoffourboys]

According to my husband they do need maintenance, but you can do the maintenance in house. He has worked for a couple of companies and both companies did the battery changes and checks in house, but did send in the old batteries. He has never known of a black box to go bad or not work when the plane came in for inspections/maintenance. He isn't for sure how they track all of that in other countries. He knows in the US there is strict paperwork so everything done to an aircraft is logged and they know everyone who has touched the plane and what they did to it.

He also said he thinks that it is about every 2 years they change out the batteries even if it is not needed....or at least they do where he works now, but he also thinks they can last a lot longer. The black box is designed to go through a lot and still do its job.

Thank you, and, your husband.
The interview I heard on SAT radio was with the person who's company builds the black box (from what I remember) and what he said was that the box was NEVER serviced and it would probably not function on the first day...let alone the 30th or after.

I didn't hear the end of the interview. I will continue to search for it.

 

[ElleElle]

Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 carrying 239 people lost contact with air traffic control some two hours after leaving Kuala Lumpur. It is still missing hours after it had been scheduled to land in Beijing early Saturday morning. Based on current information, here is a timeline:

Saturday, March 8, 2014

12.40 am - Flight MH370, a Boeing 777-200 carrying 227 passengers from 14 nationalities along with 12 crew members, took off from the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur.

1.22 am - The plane was meant to transfer to Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh air traffic control but never appeared.

2.41 am - Malaysian air traffic control in Subang lost contact with the plane, some two hours after it left Kuala Lumpur.

6.30 am - The flight did not land in Beijing as scheduled.

7.24 am - MAS announced it had lost contact with the flight.

11.14 am - MAS held a news conference confirming the loss of contact with its aircraft. MAS CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said the last point of contact was about 120 nautical miles east of Kota Baru, in the South China Sea area in airspace bordering Vietnam.

1pm - Second MAS conference scheduled but was delayed. Malaysia, Vietnam and China are working to locate missing plane.

1.41pm - State media reported Vietnam navy said plane crashed into sea near Vietnam's Tho Chu island.

2.33pm - At press conference held in Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia's transport minister said report on MH370 crash in Vietnam was 'not true'.

3.38pm - Plane "could have" crashed into Malaysian maritime territory 153 miles off the coast of Vietnam's Tho Chu island, based on calculations provided by Malaysian rescue authorities, a Vietnam navy officer said.

8.15pm - Chinese President Xi Jinping called for emergency measures to locate the plane.

9.11pm - Vietnamese search team spots two oil slicks in the sea off southern Vietnam.

10.46pm - Reports emerge that one passenger from Italy was not on the flight, his passport had been stolen in Thailand last year.

10.50pm - Vietnamese search team spots column of smoke off Vietnamese coastline

Sunday, March 9, 2014

12.04am - Reports say a second passenger, from Austria, was also not on the flight. His passport was stolen two years ago in Thailand. Both the imposters bought their tickets from China Southern Airlines on a code share with Malaysia Airlines.

2.45am - Malaysia's Maritime Enforcement Agency intensifies search operations off the Kelantan coast, where the missing plane was last spotted, after rescuers found a small piece of canvas floating there.

10.02am - Overnight search and rescue operations for the missing plane have turned up nothing, the Malaysian authorities said.

10.42am - Singapore's navy said it has sent two warships and a naval helicopter to help in the six-country search for the plane. This is in addition to a military transport plane that was deployed on Saturday.

11.20am - Malaysian authorities are investigating the identities of at least two other passengers on the flight, in addition to two who were found to be using stolen passports, a security official said.

11.57am - FBI is sending agents to probe disappearance of plane.

1.25pm - Singapore's Ministry of Defence says two military transport planes, a naval helicopter, two warships and a submarine support and rescue vessel are currently involved in the search.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...s-plane-timeline-events-flight-mh370-20140309

 

[aa9511]

But do you really think if they could put this together so quickly, they'd have chosen to look for a needle in a haystack by searching the ocean? I mean, all the investigators from these countries would have to be too dumb to have thought this before you. There's clearly more to it. No one wants to search an ocean for weeks.

Perhaps it is precisely my dumbness that made me think of something they perhaps didn't think of.

Not once have I heard any of the experts on TV talk about Test Plane idea, not once from Malaysian officials, not once on any blog, and not once from Australian officials. So that makes me think, no they haven't thought of it.

In fact, the Inmarsat guy said one of the ways they got to deciding on the South Arc is by comparing pings from similar planes on similar flight paths, to the pings from 370.

So that makes me think, ok, I guess the idea of just actually taking a plane and testing it like I suggested is too dumb for them. Because they got so very close to this actual idea, yet never went there. YKWIM?

JMO.

 

[ElleElle]

BBM.
I think they did do digital simulations.
At least that's what I thought the whole purpose of the simulations on CNN were about.

Yes, the FS in Mississauga was to, IMO, be what it's called a flight simulator.

The issue with CNN, is they never divert from the content at hand. They need to broaden their material. :twocents:

 

[Linda7NJ]

Heavy sigh...just checked back to see if there was any "new" news


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tiepos]

BBM.
I think they did do digital simulations.
At least that's what I thought the whole purpose of the simulations on CNN were about.

No, I know that they’ve used digital simulations. My point is that with the insane volume of data collected in real-time about aircraft performance in every situation - I am sure that digital simulations can provide (and have provided) the same information without using an actual aircraft to recreate a flight, the history of which is dubious at best.

 

[aa9511]

There are a few problems with your plan as I see it:

1: Figuring out the fuel consumed up until the turn won’t tell them the fuel used for the rest of the flight, which is the greatest unknown and would be a huge determining factor in how long the plane could have remained in the air. We only assume that the plane flew at a constant altitude (what was that altitude?) and on a constant heading after it was lost from radar.

2: In order to figure out the fuel consumed on the rest of the flight, they would have to exactly recreate the conditions of that flight, which would mean it would crash somewhere in the Indian Ocean as well. Sure, they might have a better idea where MH370 ended up, but now they’d have two planes to recover…


I think you are both underestimating the ability to closely estimate the fuel consumption based on the factors they do know, AND you are overestimating the ability to gain more useful insight from recreating the flight up until the turn. There are too many pieces of information missing to make an attempt at actual recreation of the event an efficient use of time or resources.

I am almost certain that they can use a digital simulation to have the same effect and learn the same things.

1. They actually have some very good data points to work with. They know that the plane MUST have been somewhere on the arc at 8:11. If they know how much fuel the plane had at the South starting point, they can eliminate certain areas of the arc, even with uncertain speed/altitude. For example, the plane COULD NOT get to the southern-most parts of the Southern arc, no matter what speed/altitude they were flying at, because there was just not enough fuel in the plane. I think they can most certainly get a shaded area of possibility to work with along the arc - even allowing for significant differences in speed and altitude. Then, start refining this shaded search area through comparing pings from Test plane vs. pings from 370. Begin with flight paths which would have the plane going through the Northernmost and Southernmost points of the shaded area. Then go down a bit on the arc from the Northernmost point, and up a bit from the Southernmost point. Keep refining - do say 15 test runs (2 hours through each one to register 2 satellite pings for comparison).

2. I think I answered this is my response to #1. The Test plane would only have to go through the first 2 hours of Test runs ( to register 2 satellite pings). All they are doing is comparing the pings from the Test Plane vs. pings from 370. They can do that with the first 2 pings from each Test run, b/c the plane could not have done a lot of zig-zagging through the Indian Ocean for it to end up somewhere on the arc at 8:11. So the first 2 pings would give an idea of how well the rest of the pings on that flight path would match up to the rest of the pings from 370.

If they have used or are using a digital simulation, we have not heard from it. We have, however, very regularly heard of Inmarsat and their calculations.
I do not think they are doing any digital simulations. I don't think they are doing any test planes. I don't think they are working in any flight simulators.

All they are doing is giving their data to Inmarsat.

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

No, I know that they’ve used digital simulations. My point is that with the insane volume of data collected in real-time about aircraft performance in every situation - I am sure that digital simulations can provide (and have provided) the same information without using an actual aircraft to recreate a flight, the history of which is dubious at best.

Have we ever heard of them working on any digital simulations?

They are not doing digital simulations, IMO.

CNN is working with the flight simulator. We have seen CNN's flight simulator for the purpose of their TV audience. We have never heard any Malaysian official talking about working with a flight simulator (other than attempting to lay blame on Captain Shah).

They are simply giving their data to Inmarsat, who are using complex mathematics.

But the end result of equations are only as accurate as the variables you plug into them.

If they can get a more accurate measurement for fuel at South turning point, why shouldn't they?

It certainly can't be any more costly or complex than what they are currently doing!!!

JMO.

 

[mck16]

1. They actually have some very good data points to work with. They know that the plane MUST have been somewhere on the arc at 8:11. If they know how much fuel the plane had at the South starting point, they can eliminate certain areas of the arc, even with uncertain speed/altitude. For example, the plane COULD NOT get to the southern-most parts of the Southern arc, no matter what speed/altitude they were flying at, because there was just not enough fuel in the plane. I think they can most certainly get a shaded area of possibility to work with along the arc - even allowing for significant differences in speed and altitude. Then, start refining this shaded search area through comparing pings from Test plane vs. pings from 370. Begin with flight paths which would have the plane going through the Northernmost and Southernmost points of the shaded area. Then go down a bit on the arc from the Northernmost point, and up a bit from the Southernmost point. Keep refining - do say 15 test runs (2 hours through each one to register 2 satellite pings for comparison).



2. I think I answered this is my response to #1. The Test plane would only have to go through the first 2 hours of Test runs ( to register 2 satellite pings). All they are doing is comparing the pings from the Test Plane vs. pings from 370. They can do that with the first 2 pings from each Test run, b/c the plane could not have done a lot of zig-zagging through the Indian Ocean for it to end up somewhere on the arc at 8:11. So the first 2 pings would give an idea of how well the rest of the pings on that flight path would match up to the rest of the pings from 370.

If they have used or are using a digital simulation, we have not heard from it. We have, however, very regularly heard of Inmarsat and their calculations.
I do not think they are doing any digital simulations. I don't think they are doing any test planes. I don't think they are working in any flight simulators.

All they are doing is giving their data to Inmarsat.

JMO.

I really appreciate all your input but maybe could appreciate it more if I knew your expertise. Are you a verified expert on this? ty

 

[aa9511]

But wasn't this the whole point of having flight simulations done on CNN in the early weeks? Testing the plane's flight path with different control groups?

No, CNN is just doing it to teach TV audience general things about flying 777.

Also, how are they going to get the Satellite pings from a flight simulator?

They need a real plane to go about 2 hours out to capture at least 2 satellite pings so they can compare those pings to the pings from 370.

I'm sorry, this cannot be reproduced in a digital or flight simulator.

JMO.

 

[Tiepos]

I think you probably haven’t heard about 90% of what they’re doing “behind the scenes”. The physical searches are the details that are made public, because that’s what the public wants to see. That’s what gives the public the impression that they’re actually doing something.

It’s sort of ludicrous to assume that they’re not doing any digital simulations. After all - digital simulations/flight simulators are nothing more than “complex mathematics” with a pretty graphical interface.

The fact that the search area is constantly being refined is a good indication (I’ll stop just shy of saying “proof&#8221 that they’re reviewing numerous possible scenarios based on possible flight patterns and fuel consumption.

This conversation is sort of starting to feel like it’s taking place in the Twilight Zone.

 

[aa9511]

I really appreciate all your input but maybe could appreciate it more if I knew your expertise. Are you a verified expert on this? ty

What, no?! I'm not a verified expert or I would be on CNN, of course. :facepalm: I'm just a person with an idea, just like countless other people on Internet talking about this (mh370).

 

[Tiepos]

I feel like I should state this again, because it’s been a few (like a dozen :laughitup threads since I said it last:

I am not glued to any television news source. I read information online and catch the (very) occasional report on CBC - so when I speak of computer simulations being performed, I’m not speaking of CNN. I’m speaking of (and making assumptions about) the authorities actually investigating the disappearance, based on information I’ve read from multiple sources (including those I see posted here).