Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a simple question. If I intended to crash an aircraft in deep water why would I turn Westerly when I could turn Easterly and fly to the deepest water on the Earth in about the same flight time?
1) Few or no countries to overfly post the first 1 hour of confusion
2) Little or no radar coverage once you swing west and then south
3) Little or no air traffic on that route except for a couple of EK flights
4) Total opposite direction to where one would look (if not for INMERSAT then search would have still been on in an easterly direction using the Helios thought process or at best in the BoB).
5) Little or no boat/sea traffic in that area
6) Flying in darkness throughout with a dawn water splash down
7) Well out of reach of most if not all countries SAR
8) Deep enough water
But most of all...............250 tons of metal still remain hidden almost 50 days later even with a proximate location......so if it went South then it seems to be hidden well enough with no debris showing up.....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What reason would they have for not wanting it found?
IIRC the underwater pings were being picked up, at one stage, for a couple of hours, and that must exclude any possibility of a spurious signal, surely? There would also be a gradual change in frequency (unless the source is crystal derived) which the manufacturer could reproduce with end of life batteries in a test unit. And if the frequency is crystal controlled then it would be ultra stable long-term which would be hugely obvious over 2 hours (a few ppm long term variation) and the approx 7000 pings collected.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Uk
Age: 67
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Georesonance press release
http://georesonance.com/20140501%20Press%20Release.pdf
http://georesonance.com/20140501%20Press%20Release.pdf
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Georesonance press release
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not give to much on that. IGARI and BITOD are quite close together.
Whats going to start now for sure is dirty laundrying ...
Eg: I find it remarkable that MAS OPS had delayed the necessary actions by using a public flight tracker (FR24 or Flightaware or Radarbox) with enabled position prediction capability and was reporting as last position a bit southeast of Danang. This was assumed to be in Cambodian airspace (!!) though.
So much confusion!
Whats going to start now for sure is dirty laundrying ...
Eg: I find it remarkable that MAS OPS had delayed the necessary actions by using a public flight tracker (FR24 or Flightaware or Radarbox) with enabled position prediction capability and was reporting as last position a bit southeast of Danang. This was assumed to be in Cambodian airspace (!!) though.
So much confusion!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preliminary report
At 01:38 MYT HCMATCC made a query to KLATCC on the whereabouts of MH 370. Thereafter KLATCC initiated efforts involving MAS OPS Center, Singapore ACC, Hong Kong ACC and Phnom Penh ACC to establish the location of MH 370. No contact had been established by any ATC units and thus the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) was activated at 05:30 MYT.
According to this report 3hrs 52mins elapsed before big alarm bells started ringing.
What is the justification for this delay?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the press release
If Geo-whatever are so convinced that their info is credible, why are they asking somebody else to put an ROV in the water to prove or disprove their assertion ?
It would indeed be a major breakthrough is they had found the wreckage, but one has to wonder that given the prospect of a global headline hitting success story, they don't put their own money where their proverbial mouth is and fund an ROV to examine the site they have identified.
The press release was smoke and mirrors.
It would indeed be a major breakthrough is they had found the wreckage, but one has to wonder that given the prospect of a global headline hitting success story, they don't put their own money where their proverbial mouth is and fund an ROV to examine the site they have identified.
The press release was smoke and mirrors.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo Manifest
I did not see this posted elsewhere. It is part of the newly released report:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Co...AirwayBill.pdf
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Co...AirwayBill.pdf
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
page 5 of that manifest --
so now it's 2453 (pounds or kilos?) of lithium batteries , not 1/10th that many as per early reports ?
so now it's 2453 (pounds or kilos?) of lithium batteries , not 1/10th that many as per early reports ?
133 PACKAGES total 1990KGS is roughly 15kg each package
and
67 loose packages total 463 kg average 7kg each package
They were packed in PMC 5871. Not sure if it was put in the forward or aft.
That's a lot of Lithium Ion batteries in a PAX aircraft.
LINK TO 965 Packing Instructions
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/d...965-970-EN.pdf
Last edited by Sheep Guts; 1st May 2014 at 14:50.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The horse has already bolted and only now do we consider closing the stable doors?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full set of ICAO report documents
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ry-report.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...and-0614l.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...rway-bill.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...h370-maps.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ry-report.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...and-0614l.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...rway-bill.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...h370-maps.html
Last edited by RichardC10; 1st May 2014 at 15:14. Reason: remove spaces
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the delay...
MH370 preliminary report raises questions on reaction time by authorities - The Malaysian Insider
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/wo...html?hpt=hp_t1
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/wo...html?hpt=hp_t1
Last edited by Carjockey; 1st May 2014 at 15:44.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: vancouver
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Georesonance
I have no difficulty in believing this is total nonsense and/or a scam.
However, I have difficulty in following motivation or what their "upside" could be.
If nothing is found their credibility is shot.
If old wreckage is found their credibility is still shot since they stated that nothing was "detected" at that site shortly before 370 disappeared
Their statement only makes sense if they really believe they've found something, however this doesn't make their clain any less bizarre.
However, I have difficulty in following motivation or what their "upside" could be.
If nothing is found their credibility is shot.
If old wreckage is found their credibility is still shot since they stated that nothing was "detected" at that site shortly before 370 disappeared
Their statement only makes sense if they really believe they've found something, however this doesn't make their clain any less bizarre.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RichardC10
thanks for the links. The maps make things clearer.
As you suggested yesterday a ground speed of 325 to 350 kts leads to the search area.
If the plane was in straight flight it needs a flight level well below 350 to stay above minimum clean.
E.g. I am just watching a plane IAS270 and GS320 at FL120, almost no wc.
Or another one IAS250 and GS360 at FL220, no wc.
There are altitudes of 30000, 15000 and 3000 indicated at the last spot.
Flying significantly lower and/or slower will affect the endurance, too. At least 320 kts at 3000 feet does not make too much sense to me.
If the MH370 was lower than F350 at 18:22 it is highly unlikely that Penang radar could pick it up at 220 NM range, so descent should have happened later.
But GS may have been calculated from Penang defense radar returns.
Lots of question marks
I am sure this is worked into the model. It seems the final ping at 00:19 is where a gliding start is assumed.
Another option is that it was zig-zagging, which I would believe needs manual control (or a perfectly designed pre-loaded flight plan). But if GS was low under Penang radar already, zig-zag is not an option.
Turning point is assumed 18:27 to the South, I guess this is from some sort of Inmarsat login or so.
How can we get to 10 degrees left drift per hour?
Looking for your next analysis, Richard
thanks for the links. The maps make things clearer.
As you suggested yesterday a ground speed of 325 to 350 kts leads to the search area.
If the plane was in straight flight it needs a flight level well below 350 to stay above minimum clean.
E.g. I am just watching a plane IAS270 and GS320 at FL120, almost no wc.
Or another one IAS250 and GS360 at FL220, no wc.
There are altitudes of 30000, 15000 and 3000 indicated at the last spot.
Flying significantly lower and/or slower will affect the endurance, too. At least 320 kts at 3000 feet does not make too much sense to me.
If the MH370 was lower than F350 at 18:22 it is highly unlikely that Penang radar could pick it up at 220 NM range, so descent should have happened later.
But GS may have been calculated from Penang defense radar returns.
Lots of question marks
I am sure this is worked into the model. It seems the final ping at 00:19 is where a gliding start is assumed.
Another option is that it was zig-zagging, which I would believe needs manual control (or a perfectly designed pre-loaded flight plan). But if GS was low under Penang radar already, zig-zag is not an option.
Turning point is assumed 18:27 to the South, I guess this is from some sort of Inmarsat login or so.
How can we get to 10 degrees left drift per hour?
Looking for your next analysis, Richard
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icao Document:
MONTRÉAL, 13 February 2013 – Pending the outcomes of investigations now being carried out in the
United States and Japan, the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) has provisionally approved an interim amendment that will prohibit the carriage of lithium ion
aircraft batteries as cargo on passenger planes. Final approval of the amendment from the ICAO Council
is expected when it returns to Session later this month.
The new amendment will rescind ICAO’s recent inclusion of lithium ion aircraft batteries up to 35kg in
Special Provision A51 to the UN aviation body’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air. Special Provision A51 is designed to provide airlines with the operational
flexibility to transport aircraft batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft in special circumstances. The
inclusion of lithium ion aircraft batteries in A51 had only become effective on 1 January 2013.
“This amendment to Special Provision A51 is a temporary measure, taken to ensure that safety
considerations remain paramount while the related investigations in the United States and Japan remain
ongoing,” stressed ICAO Council President, Roberto Kobeh González. “Safety is the number one priority
of the aviation community and we are very confident that this situation will eventually be resolved in a
manner that further supports air transport’s admirable safety performance while addressing the
concerns of all stakeholders impacted by these events.”
The ICAO decision comes on the heels of the grounding of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner fleet by the U.S. and
Japan more than three weeks ago, after a battery caught fire in a plane parked in Boston and a 787 with
a smoking battery was forced to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu airport in western Japan.
ICAO stressed that the new amendment does not affect the carriage of other aircraft battery types on
passenger planes under A51, nor will it place additional restrictions on lithium ion aircraft batteries
being carried as cargo on cargo aircraft. Similarly, it will have no impact on the extensive requirements
in the ICAO Technical Instructions governing the carriage of other types of lithium ion batteries.
According to the cargo manifest the aircraft was carrying 2453 kgs of cargo identified as Lithium Iron batteries.
Any thoughts?
MONTRÉAL, 13 February 2013 – Pending the outcomes of investigations now being carried out in the
United States and Japan, the President of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) has provisionally approved an interim amendment that will prohibit the carriage of lithium ion
aircraft batteries as cargo on passenger planes. Final approval of the amendment from the ICAO Council
is expected when it returns to Session later this month.
The new amendment will rescind ICAO’s recent inclusion of lithium ion aircraft batteries up to 35kg in
Special Provision A51 to the UN aviation body’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air. Special Provision A51 is designed to provide airlines with the operational
flexibility to transport aircraft batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft in special circumstances. The
inclusion of lithium ion aircraft batteries in A51 had only become effective on 1 January 2013.
“This amendment to Special Provision A51 is a temporary measure, taken to ensure that safety
considerations remain paramount while the related investigations in the United States and Japan remain
ongoing,” stressed ICAO Council President, Roberto Kobeh González. “Safety is the number one priority
of the aviation community and we are very confident that this situation will eventually be resolved in a
manner that further supports air transport’s admirable safety performance while addressing the
concerns of all stakeholders impacted by these events.”
The ICAO decision comes on the heels of the grounding of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner fleet by the U.S. and
Japan more than three weeks ago, after a battery caught fire in a plane parked in Boston and a 787 with
a smoking battery was forced to make an emergency landing at Takamatsu airport in western Japan.
ICAO stressed that the new amendment does not affect the carriage of other aircraft battery types on
passenger planes under A51, nor will it place additional restrictions on lithium ion aircraft batteries
being carried as cargo on cargo aircraft. Similarly, it will have no impact on the extensive requirements
in the ICAO Technical Instructions governing the carriage of other types of lithium ion batteries.
According to the cargo manifest the aircraft was carrying 2453 kgs of cargo identified as Lithium Iron batteries.
Any thoughts?
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDF alterations
First time poster - please be gentle
The pdf on the link has been extensively altered - and not with any great skill. I don't think it's malicious, but it covers some probable procedural inadequacies and some dodgy English. You can take apart the pdf in Adobe Acrobat and see the different layers of edits and add-ons yourself.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Co...AirwayBill.pdf
UPDATE: Apparently I was mistaken and this 'layering' of scanned PDF documents is a result of enhancement features of many scanner's software and is not evidence of tampering. Apologies.
The pdf on the link has been extensively altered - and not with any great skill. I don't think it's malicious, but it covers some probable procedural inadequacies and some dodgy English. You can take apart the pdf in Adobe Acrobat and see the different layers of edits and add-ons yourself.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Co...AirwayBill.pdf
UPDATE: Apparently I was mistaken and this 'layering' of scanned PDF documents is a result of enhancement features of many scanner's software and is not evidence of tampering. Apologies.
Last edited by graphicdesign; 1st May 2014 at 20:51. Reason: Factual error.