Missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 - Thread 5

[KenAdams]

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

Thread 4

What is that explanation itsnotatest ?

First I wanted to clarify that I'd understood you correctly.

Now i do, I think you're wrong, Achy

Any of that is possible. The Inmarsat system isn't designed for geographical tracking. Experts are having to deduce the plane's path from its responses - as a quote above said, this has never been done before. And a single satellite can only give the two mirrored arcs; it can't tell whether the plane went North or south. They've been trying to figure this out by looking for doppler effects but, tbh, you're unlikely to get them over such a steep-angled trajectory.

Best chance, I think, would be information from Rolls Royce on the plane's engine feedback. They haven't even said they collected it, I just think they obviously would and suspect that is who Inmarsat meant by "our partner". If they have it, and have analysed it, that will have told them which way MH370 went.

Sorry, I was talking about the reliability of the satcom, not the elephant!

Sorry, I was talking about the reliability of the satcom, not the elephant!

I would be curious to find out how a thread about missing airplanes could possibly change into a discussion about the reliability of elephants.

Is the elephant the pilot?

"Is the elephant the pilot?"

Let's get that on a tshirt!

No, it's this, which I'm pleased to see (although depressed, too,) as it's always looked the most obvious explanation to me as well. I hope the elephant doesn't look like this ... but, Occam's Razor and all that.

Elephant:
Plane goes dark at point of maximum confusion.
Possibly, depending on how verifiable various information is, plane is flown as high as possible, as low as possible, zig zagged around a bit, then set on a bearing that will reach fuel exhaustion in a place that is as remote as it is as possible to get, and as deep as it is possible to get. Therefore, maximum difficulty in recovering flight recorders.

Passengers and crew, all crew can be incapacitated by decompressing the cabin. Could be done at any point during the above.

Prevailing culture of "saving face". Person responsible would have a vested interest in protecting their family, a mystery is much preferable to the reality becoming public. And Malaysia Airlines likely to be very defensive until there is unrefutable evidence.

Isn't it obvious?

That may not be the elephant you meant, ItsNot, as it's thoroughly wrapped in tinfoil! Did you mean pilot suicide?

Ah, xpost :)

I'm interested in the suggestion in Garlic's link that a pulse can be accurately directed at an aircraft in flight with sufficient power to "destroy" its electronic systems, but not the navigation and control systems which will then be used by remote control to fly it to a secret location, immune to interference by any surviving crew.

I am familiar with the concept of a big EMP damaging electronic equipment, if it is unscreened and near enough to the source, but can't grasp the concept of selective destruction. Looks like a fantasy conspiracy theory to me.

One of the many things that have bugged me, Piglet, were posts about AWACS systems having the capability to remotely control other planes. As far as is publicly known, they only have this capability on planes that are set up to be controlled by the remote system. But it is well known that the US has been energetically striving to achieve this over systems not owned by itself. Whether by planting a bug in the target vehicle or by the 'holy grail' of remote control without a planned interface, this is certainly on the way if not here.

I agree with all that writer says about the unlikelihood of MH370's being missed so many times, by so many surveillance systems, while over populated Asia. And that it went to Diego Garcia. After that, though, it could have been refuelled & sent off empty.

Garlic

I don't buy a cover up re shooting it down (unless China shot it down)

The intention to shoot down rogue aircraft has been in the public domain since 911. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Actually doing so would only reinforce that intention to other potential hijackers. I can't see any benefit in covering it up.

Except that maybe China would attempt to cover it up. Most of the passengers were Chinese, and they have a somewhat different approach to security matters and internal communication.

Lithium batteries were in the cargo.

Do you think the cargo igniting in a change of temperature may have caused a fire?

If so, why no distress signal?

Why has it taken 5 days before they decide to bother to check the object they spotted in the ocean? Thats long gone now surely!

Sorry if this has already been asked or explained but why was the news saying Thursday that they were getting "pings" in the area they are now searching? I can't find reference if this now but I understood that they would only get a ping if the engine was on...so what was that about?

I think youre asking about the pings they got from the satellite? That showed the plane was somewhere on an arc a certain distance from the satellite about 7hrs after takeoff. The engines needed to be powered for this to happen. If no other pings after that then supposedly the engines went off on that arc. But that was when it went missing not now.

Re the elephant I think I tend to agree.
Everyone keeps saying it's the worst possible place to search and I think that's relevant.

If you were being heroic and saving the greater number I think you would consider the crash recovery and ditch,yes, but not all the way down there. After all ditching just off the Malay Coast would kill off the hijacker(s) and avoid buildings but then boxes would be recoverable and explain what you'd done. You'd be a hero.

To find out (on here ) that the boxes will only have the last 2 hrs is very disappointing and I think that really needs addressing internationally.

Sorry - I don't understand the elephant theory above. Who is responsible in that theory? One of the crew?

I know what allisgood is talking about. For awhile Sky news was reporting that the search planes were getting "pings" from the actual objects, perhaps some sort of dopplar or something that detects metal or objects under water? I don't think they meant the same "pings" as the ones from the aircraft (the ones detected when the engine is on). Does anyone know what we mean? Or have allisgood and I both imagined that?

allisgood if you scroll down this article to 8:41 am, it says one of the planes did pick up objects on its radar but turned out to be a false alarm.

www.smh.com.au/national/the-search-for-missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-mh370-20140321-356k3.html

If ACRAS and the transponder were both turned off then why wouldn't the 'ping' also be turned off?

Is it not possible to turn it off if the engine is still in use? Is it more difficult to turn off? Does it need to be turned off in a different area of the plane from the other systems?

Is the ping only detected by military satellites? If the plane were flying in the area of the southern Indian ocean wouldn't the ping also be detected at one of the airports, such as the Seychelles or the Maldives or Perth?

Lou I think the pings are to do with the engines sending back data for rolls Royce to study.
Most pilots seem to not have known about it it turns out.

I think the sender of the pings is on the back of the plane somewhere and not easy to turn off.

garlic i'm afraid i'm with that elephant.

i trust these big security companies and superpowers less than i trust terrorists to be frank. at least the latter is open about their agendas, tends to take responsibility for what they do and doesn't control the media or have trillions of dollars to spend.

"Why has it taken 5 days before they decide to bother to check the object they spotted in the ocean?"

There will be thousands of images covering 2m square miles being checked for objects. They don't come with a. "Look! Here!" Flag.