Disappearing Aircraft 5648


I had fairly well concluded that the most likely cause was a fire disrupting the electrical and control systems, when CNN now say the sharp left turn was pre-programmed 12 minutes before sign off from Malaysian Air Traffic control, which was followed fairly quickly by that left turn.

CNN claim to have this from an US official, from data sent back before the reporting systems went off.  It is hard to know what to make of it: obviously there are large economic interests that much prefer blame to lie with the pilots rather than the aircraft.  But if it is true then the move was not a response to an emergency.  (CNN went on to say the pilot could have programmed in the course change as a contingency in case of an emergency.  That made no sense to me at all – does it to anyone else?)

I still find it extremely unlikely that the plane landed or crashed on land  I cannot believe it could evade military detection as it flew over a highly militarized region.  Somewhere there is debris on the ocean.  There have been previous pilot suicides that took the plane with them; but the long detour first seems very strange and I do not believe is precedented.  However if the CNN information on pre-programming is correct, and given it was the co-pilot who signed off to air traffic control, it is hard to look beyond the pilots as those responsible for whatever did happen.  In fact, on consideration, the most improbable thing is that information CNN are reporting from the US official.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

5,648 thoughts on “Disappearing Aircraft

1 168 169 170 171 172 181
  • James

    Pink….

    Pretty much, yes.

    The term used (and likely “little known”) was that (in at least one case during 9/11) the target was “re-constructed”. In fact in the case of 93 and 77 Primary didn’t get them for several minutes.
    My guess is, they all suffered areas of “blackness”.

    And the very same thing happened to MAS370.

    I’d add one other thing, when it was “lit up” again (before it went black…and then south), t should have been picked up by no less than three different countries radar. And it wasn’t.

  • michael norton

    Tempora

    https://giswatch.org/en/communications-surveillance/unmasking-five-eyes-global-surveillance-practices

    Code-named programmes that have been revealed to the public over the last decade go some way to illustrating how the Five Eyes alliance collaborates on specific programmes of activity and how information is shared. One important example is the TEMPORA programme, revealed by Snowden. By placing taps at key undersea fibre-optic cable landing stations, the programme is able to intercept a significant portion of the communications that traverse the UK. The Guardian has reported that 300 analysts from GCHQ and 250 from the NSA were directly assigned to examine material collected TEMPORA stores content for three days and metadata for 30 days.

    • michael norton

      It does seem “remarkable” that nobody knows anything whatsoever about the disappearance of MH 370

      yet “they” know what colour lavatory paper you use?

  • James

    Pink

    Re 9/11

    You have to prove the aircraft went into the air.
    Two (11 and 77) have no “sheets” related (no records).

    Since all turned off transponders, then the “proof” they were flying is “the Primary Radar” tracks.

    Take the actual crashes into the Twin Towers.
    I would expect an airliner to actually “partially” pass through a tower (obviously on fire/wrecked).
    Think about it.
    If it “got in”, the inside is “hollow”. Then parts of it will get out the other side.
    If you think that theory is mad…. then how did they recover the “black boxes”.

    The “first impact” would have been destroyed ?
    The passport wasn’t. The flight recorders weren’t ?

    MAS370 (I call it by its tag) is a demo of 9/11. Or how you “disappear an airliner”.

  • James

    The other thing is….
    …. the air is “thicker” when you are lower.
    So you need more “engines” to go “fast” at “lower levels”.

    So, to fly “fast” you need “power”. Probably 3x the power.
    So a different shape is needed.

    Engines on an A/C do their job at a certain height.
    I fly very high. And in a small A/C (so I carry less fuel than an airliner).
    I have to fly high, so that I can go far….. I fly a Gulfstream. But still I need fuel.

    At take off speed, when you go on your holidays, the A/C is climbing, at full thrust, in “thick air”.
    Landing, you use the “thick air” the other way.
    Whichever…. you can’t fly at “low level” at “cruise speed”.
    They aren’t designed to do that, And they can’t do it.
    You can do it….. but you have to fly “slower”. And you’d be flying on power.

    You cannot fly at 500 mph (that’s mph), that low (you could if you are an F16, and power to weight is low…and you have your after burner lit)

    If you fly at 583 mph (measure the points, that’s what the Govt say), your wings would fall off.
    And that will not happen, as you don’t have the power.
    They don’t need to build them to do that ! You just can’t do it.

    BUT don’t believe me. Measure it. Get a video, mark the position, measure it on a map…and then time it.
    Then work out. 3x thicker air at near sea level = 6x thrust needed ( or “twice as fast”)
    Or “six times more thrust”.

    On a dive you could do it.

  • Pink

    James you need to take it over to the 911 thread theres is enough confusion with this plane to sort through 🙂

  • James

    Pink,

    True… except here, they are finding “bits” of aircraft (that belong to that aircraft !).

    On that note, the four (?) pieces so far recovered, tell a (partial) story.
    The three external items, you’d imagine, would indeed come off and aircraft hitting the sea (with any force)…
    ….but the other piece is internal (closet door section), and that would only be there if the “core” had smashed apart. That would occur in a “heavy impact”.

    If MAS370 ran out of fuel (one engine, then the other, as is likely), it would have gone into a “spiral” initially…
    ….and then it would be in “the lap of the gods” as it came down as a “chaotic non flying lump”.

    Who knows what angle it would have impacted the sea at, but likely a nose down, steep angle.
    And doubtless, it would have “smashed to pieces” on impact.

    Which means they’re searching for “two engines” and “any large pieces that remained together after the impact”….and “two heavily damaged, orange boxes”. So “not at lot”.

    I imagine the “debris field” on the surface would have been “pretty large” initially.
    But even then, compared to the Indian Ocean, so very tiny. And “completely missed”.

    • michael norton

      James

      if you plot a reverse line from South Africa through the Island of Rodrigues

      what does that inform you?

        • michael norton

          This is interesting, particularly following the catastrophic crash ( and removal of all aircraft from service)
          of Airbus Helicopters ( HQ South East FRANCE) H215 Super Puma

          Airbus wants to replace A400M parts after cracks found, Germany says
          http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-airbus-germany-idUKKCN0Y423B
          Airbus now needs to submit a comprehensive plan to deal with various problems that have affected the long-delayed A400M, including significant gearbox glitches on its turboprop engines, Zimmer told lawmakers.

          Airbus confirmed it had identified an unknown cracking behaviour in a part made of an aluminium alloy during quality control checks in 2011. It said the issue did not affect flight safety and repairs agreed with its customers would be incorporated into regular maintenance and upgrade schedules.

          Germany has ordered 53 of the planes from Airbus, but deliveries have been delayed as Europe’s largest aerospace company grapples with production delays.

  • Pink

    Q if you can see this thread can you double check whats going on about the difference between MRO and MRQ . Dirck is a pilot and seems to have a difference of opinion with the others there .

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/951252171610482/
    Christopher Goodfellow
    Yesterday at 17:45

    Here is a picture of MRO sept 5 2004. I have not verified if MRO was there on that day, I leave that to Kathy to hunt down. The picture clearly shows a patch at the location Dirck has referred to so I think we can safely say if a patch was made to the pressure hull in any way, it is a possible cause. Dirck Hecking still in the game…..

  • Q

    Of interest:

    Air Crash Investigations – The Disappearance of MH370 – Did Captain Zaharie …
    By Dirk Barreveld

    He states that 9M-MRO underwent a cabin reconfiguration in 2006. Maybe that is part of the picture.

    On March 5, 2014, a hole was found in the right engine acoustic panel. In 2013, the right engine was found to be using 1.5 times more fuel than the left engine.

    All this on the right side.

  • Q

    There has been a lot of nitpicking elsewhere about every individual problem with this plane, but no one seems to examine the accumulation of a number of little and not-so-little problems. It is rarely one small thing that causes a catastrophe, but many small things and not-so-small things can cause a cascading effect when put together.

    9M-MRO may have been the perfect storm.

  • James

    “A pilot can deselect the satcom as a mode of transmission for ACARS messages so that they go out over the radio instead”,

    That “kinda” sets the tone from the “get go”.

    You transmit ACARS over VHF if/when you are in contact with a ground station.
    You transmit ACARS over SATCOM if/when you are not in contact with a ground station.

    So… flying across the Atlantic, you transmit over VHF “when you are over land”.
    And you transmit over SATCOM “when you are over the sea”.

    You don’t “select/deselect” to transmit over “one or the other” as “personal choice”.

  • James

    His conclusion…

    “To sum up, the fact that the SDU logged back on with Inmarsat three minutes after leaving primary radar coverage is one of the most significant clues that we have to the fate of MH370. By itself, it rules out the possibility that MH370 went dark due to fire or electrical malfunction (which remains a popular theory despite being impossible for several other reasons as well) and it strongly suggests that the plane was not hijacked by one of its own pilots for the purposes of committing suicide (another popular theory). Instead, the SDU re-logon suggests the plane was taken over by a passenger or passengers with a sophisticated knowledge of aircraft electrical systems”.

    …which does not answer “why did the SDU login after it logged out” ?

    A “sophisticated group of pax…..decided we’ll logon again” ?
    That is madness.

    I believe the “incident” happened “well before IGARI”.
    The FIR was the “execution point” where all things were already in place (one person on the flight-deck and all pax deceased).

    After IGARI, the systems were “shut down” (isolated) and “VFR” (for want of a better term) was taken up.
    This section was “hand flown” and “sight navigated” (and by that I mean, it took some doing at night, but can be done…it depends on your level of experience on type, general flying ability, planning and motivation).

    Froom Banda Aceh, navigation was needed.
    And for this reason, systems were “un-isolated”. This gave rise to the “logon”.

    Saying “Hal did it”, just doesn’t rub.
    Saying “a group of B777 (200 series) enthusiasts did it”, doesn’t rub.

    A “flyer” did this.
    A flyer with a long and consistent background “on type” did this.

    • michael norton

      If you reverse-engineer the debris route of MH370

      Mossel Bay, South Africa – Madagascar – Reunion – Rodrigues Island the next stop would be likely be Diego Garcia

  • Pink

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/may/19/egyptair-plane-cairo-paris-live-updatesFlight MS804, en route from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Cairo, has disappeared from radar.
    The plane, an Airbus A320, was scheduled to leave Paris at 11.09pm on Wednesday night (21.09 GMT/22.09 BST/07.09am Thursday AEST).
    The airline said contact was lost around 16km/10 miles inside Egyptian airspace at 2.45am local time (00.45 GMT/01.45 BST/10.45 AEST).
    The plane was carrying 56 passengers and 10 crew: two cockpit crew, five cabin crew and three security personnel.
    Search and rescue efforts are underway at the site where contact was lost, around 50-65km (30-40 miles) north of Egypt’s coast.

    • michael norton

      American B-52 bomber crashes in Guam

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36328582

      The bomber was deployed to the US island territory from North Dakota as part of the military’s continuous presence in the Pacific.

      Local news site Kuam quoted the Guam governor’s office as saying: “We assure the public this does not appear to be an attack.”

  • James

    B 52 was a training flight. Appears to have crashed on take off.
    All crew members (7) survived the incident.

    Flight MS804, commercial shipping in the area have diverted to the “last known position” to conduct a search operation for debris.
    Crew and pax are believed to be…..
    The captain, First Officer and 5 cabin crew.
    3 sky marshals.
    30 Egyptians,
    15 French,
    2 Iraqis,
    1 British,
    1 Belgian,
    1 Kuwaiti,
    1 Saudi,
    1 Sudanese,
    1 Chadian,
    1 Portugese,
    1 Algerian
    1 Canadian.

  • Q

    From the Guardian link:

    “In his briefing to reporters Fathy admitted that the Egyptian authorities mistakenly reported that a signal was received two hours after air traffic control lost contact with MS804.

    He said: “There was a mistake made by an official somewhere. He talked about a signal and then a few minutes after he came back and apologised, and he came back and said ‘sorry there was no signal’. After his first statement we all went to the press and said the signal was received, thereafter we denied that and we admit there was a mistake that happened.””

    Malaysia did not admit to any mistakes in the handling of MH370.

    Similarities to MH370 in the strange right 90-degree turn, then 360 degree left turn, then 22,000-foot drop.

    In this instance, debris has already been found, and officials were quick to consider terror. But then, officials here are quick to admit mistakes, too.

  • Q

    What is it about passenger jets disappearing right after handover from ATC? What is it about erratic turns and drops right after handover from ATC? Would any of this happen over land?

  • James

    Q

    Here’s something for you.

    At 03:27 am local time, ATHINAI Area Control Center tried to communicate with the flight for transfer of communication and control from ATHINAI FIR to CAIRO FIR.

    Despite the repetitive calls, the flight did not respond and thus the Air Traffic Controller called on the emergency frequency without response.

    At 03:29:40 am local time the flight signal was lost from radar, almost 7 NM within the Cairo FIR.

    (Hellenic CAA)

    Prior to the ATC call at 03.27 Local, it appears there was no indication that the aircraft was in distress (Secondary Radar). The contact was routine and was merely to communicate with the flight for transfer of communication and control from ATHINAI to CAIRO.

    Hellenic ATC monitoring the flight does not seem “concerned” prior to this routine communication. The flight therefore must have appeared “normal” to them.

    The flight was “unresponsive” to ATC call.
    The ATC tried to contact the aircraft for approx 2 minutes and 40 seconds before losing Secondary Radar contact at approx 03.29’40 Local.

    You said “what is it about losing aircraft at hand overs”.
    It’s a good point. It made me find the ATC release.
    What is it indeed !

    Well, the call comes in AND the pilot has to respond.
    All appears “normal” to ATC up to this point.
    BUT immediately, there is NO “call back” from the pilot.
    The “call back” should come IMMEDIATELY or at least “pretty damn quickly”.
    You’re flying along, there’s nothing to do, you know you’re approaching the FIR, you know you’ll get a call.
    You know you’ll answer it….say good night….change the frequency….and say hello to the next sector.
    Job done.

    But this doesn’t happen.
    ATC calls. The call goes unanswered….and 2 minutes 40 seconds later, you’re off Secondary Radar.

    Does that sound like a bomb to you ?

    To me, that sounds like the incident/crash/whatever has happened “not at the FIR”….
    …but due to the fact the pilot had to “call back”. That sounds like a hijack.

  • Pink

    The Egyptian military says it has found parts of debris from the missing EgyptAir plane 290 kilometres north of the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria.

    The navy has also found some of the passengers’ belongings and is sweeping the area looking for the plane’s black box, the military said in a statement on Friday…
    – See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/05/20/airline-confirms-wreckage-from-missing-plane.html#sthash.NjWLGqNz.dpuf..

  • James

    Further radar data (plot) data seems to show the….
    ….drop/fall/dive from 37,000ft and a left 90 degree turn.
    Then a “360” to the right, and so “retaking” the previous “90 degree track”, whilst falling/descending to 15,000ft .
    It is lost to radar at/below 10,000ft.

    Seems like a “uncontrolled decompression” followed by a 90 degree turn off the airway (traffic avoidance).

    No calls from the aircraft may just mean they couldn’t be heard (by either the Greeks or Egyptians) due to their location at that time. After all, they didn’t answer ATC at 03.27. Maybe they couldn’t hear them ?
    If there then was an “uncontrolled decompression” (rapid or explosive), they may have been trying to get down quick, so communicating was the last thing on their minds (even if they couldn’t be heard)

    The fact that they did a “360” and that they didn’t stop descending at 10,000 feet, may indicate that there was damage to the aircraft due to/caused by the initial decompression.

    Who knows ! We’ll have to wait.

    If it is terrorism related, it seems the French are pretty “relaxed” about it !
    It departed one of their airports. Their main bloomin one !!!!

  • James

    No idea if this is “true” or not. Maybe the authorities will release this data in time.

    00:26Z Lavatory Smoke
    00:27Z Avionics Compartment Smoke
    00:29Z Flight Controls Unit 2 Fault
    00:29Z Spoiler Elevator Computer 3 Fault
    no further ACARS messages were received

    Could be fake ?

    Possible it suggests several things.
    VHF was transmitting, even if the radio wasn’t (there are “black spots” around the FIR)
    Sensor were working and triggered at 00.26 Zulu (prior to the incoming ATC call).
    The Avionics Bay had “smoke” sensors trigger. Maybe that is why there was no radio. There is no fire suppression in the avionics bay. It would make matters worse, in some respects.

    A fire onboard ? The ship saw what it thinks was the a/c on fire as it flew. It would have to be “big” for someone at sea to spot that….and not see an impact.

    No “pressure altitude” warning though. You’d get that “early” if there was an “explosive decompression” first, then a fire. But there must have been for the a/c to turn off course and go lower.

    Time will tell, I guess.

  • James

    Further ACARS.

    00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
    00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
    00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
    00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
    00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
    00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT

    The sensor seem to be alerting from the “front, right”.
    Although the toilet is on the left (if it is the front toilet that issues the alert).
    Or rather, front right (“heat”), then the toilet (smoke), and the avionics bay below the cockpit (smoke).

  • James

    I am interested to see what happens here.

    There is no evidence (as yet) there was a “bomb onboard” this aircraft.
    There is no evidence that there wasn’t.

    This goes for “fire onboard”, “structural failure”, “mechanical failure”, “pilot suicide”, and so on !
    Nothing is known….as yet.

    And yet…. EVERYONE has come out and said (virtually) “IT’S TERRORISM”.
    We can’t have an “air crash” these days without this statement being made.

    Guess what….all (long distance) flying is covered by ETOPS. We have “Extended Range” protocols.
    Why ?
    Because “things can go wrong at any time”. And that includes “at FL370” and “and hour from an airport”.

1 168 169 170 171 172 181