Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

reply to post by Daughter2


There is ONE antenna array. And the sensitivity level is overstated. That's under optimal conditions, with no interference of any sort. Any kind of ionospheric disruption degrades the signal down to where it's potentially unreadable.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Except, again, OTH-B antennas are subject to ionospheric interference. So the range could be cut down, or the returns could be almost unreadable. You have to check what the ionosphere was doing that day to determine if they could have tracked it.

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Murgatroid

 

The AAIB guys analysed the sat data from Inmarsat, they aren't the Malaysian investigators. And thanks to Inmarsat and AAIB, there is data at all as obviously the Malaysian guys and FBI had nothing to go on and there wouldn't have been anything known were it not for the Inmarsat and AAIB guys.

The arcs were formulated because of the Inmarsat pings, the arcs were then narrowed down to a 3% area using doppler effect, which is 100% more than came from any of the other supposed investigators. When Inmarsat and AAIB professionally analysed the data, it was then peer reviewed before being released to Malaysia who then checked the data themselves for confirmation before public release.

Instead of blaming the lack of information on conspiracy, perhaps blame the lack of controls in the handover process of ATC areas, blame the lack of security on planes, blame the lack of security measures for ensuring planes stick to flight paths, blame the fact that transponders and ACARS are able to be switched off, blame the lack of immediate action when it went off radar, blame the lack of constant radar coverage, blame the option for buying ACARS instead of a compulsory system, blame the lack of information being released on basic lack of information.

There is no ATC coverage north of IGARI until one comes in range of civilian ATC radar at Ho Chi Min city(former Saigon) except that the Vietnamese military confirmed in the early days of this matter that they did see MH370 on their Military radar until 1840 GMT and where did they search?

The Vietnamese who saw it on military radar searched east of the Mekong delta.

What strange co-incidence then that now INMARSAT confirms the aircraft turned right and flew south?

Zaphod58
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

Except, again, OTH-B antennas are subject to ionospheric interference. So the range could be cut down, or the returns could be almost unreadable. You have to check what the ionosphere was doing that day to determine if they could have tracked it.

and your proof that it was not functional is ....

If you wish to make this claim then I welcome you proving it?

Well I think the outcome of this could go three ways -

No further news No wreckage and No conclusive evidence, so the families will be left to a lifetime of Heartbraking Devastation not being able to say good buy properly and not knowing the truth.



The plane wreckage is found and TPTB sattisfy those people who follow and trust without doubt, and after testing and analasis a conclusion is reached regarding the planes dimise.


A catastrophic even occurs that to those who follow TPTB do not link the two events, but to those who are "Awake" a link is without doubt.

Zaphod58
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

 

Yeah, you're right. The entire crew most likely wanted to commit suicide.

After reading garbage theories here on abovetopsecret who wouldn't comit suicide.

Mass suicide is so far fetched that you need to provide proof not conjecture.

reply to post by sy.gunson


My reply was sarcastic towards the one that I was replying to.

reply to post by UKGuy1805

It's probably self-referential and not Nostradamus-y or linked to a future terrorist plot; but anything is possible in this cray cray world. The phrase "two passports" could have just as easily been used because "two" fit the music better than "one." The final phrase,"finish what you start," could refer to anything.
But it's a cool find.
Link to lyrics: www.azlyrics.com...

reply to post by sy.gunson


Inmarsat and AAIB are qualified to know their stuff, they know more than you about the data, the details and the investigation and have concluded your theory of 'fire' as EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, so no matter how much you throw your dummy out the pram and calling me names, you are probably wrong and the guys qualified to say so, say so. Face the facts, making little conspiracy theories that are against the facts only proves your lack of facts.

I suggest you write to Inmarsat and AAIB, tell them your theory, do you think they didn't consider 'fire', 'structural', 'accidental' etc as a first call, pretty sure they did and their conclusion is that it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, but hey some guy making conspiracy theories on ATS doesn't agree, he want's his own theory. Tantrum much? At least you are a good case study for the psychology students.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Uhm, where did I say it was non-functional? Show me anywhere in that statement. I said that depending on what the ionosphere was doing, the readings could be anywhere from ultra sensitive, to almost unreadable.

If the data sy.gunson has been turned toward is accurate - being that MH 370 turned right (rather than 'left') at/about the time it disappeared from primary radar...then, flew a direct (virtually) route to the southern Indian Ocean...

This would mean that the plane would have tracked back through the radar-field it had just left...in a short time span.
Does that "radar" (flightradar24), and/or the Malaysian military radar...only track active transponders?
Wouldn't the plane have shown as a blip or some unidentifiable return, when passing back through the primary radar field of Kuala Lumpur's towers?
Does anyone have access to (or - can give a link) FlightRadar24's displays for the hour or so after MH 370 disappeared from view?

The Malaysian military radar purported to have tracked the plane back across the peninsular, and into the Strait of Malacca...
Thailand's military radar was reported to have, likewise, tracked the plane (later determination) south across the Gulf of Thailand, then across Kota Bahru to the Straits of Malacca...
Isn't that awful coincidental?
One of the biggest mystery disappearances of modern times...and, there's another unidentified craft darting around in the same vicinity...leading military investigators away from the...peer reviewed Inmarsat Answer?

How many coincidences does it take to raise a hackle?

haveblue

Zaphod58
reply to post by haveblue

 

It may have started small, and one pilot was programming the autopilot, while the other fought it. Then he joined him because it was too much for one

Which assumes that there was just one emergency being dealt with, ie fire and excludes the possibility that the crew were not already distracted coping with an electrical failure which led to the fire.

Where a fire to develop from a severed oxygen line, it would be like a huge blow torch, second it would deprive both pilots of breathable air to fight the fire or fly the aircraft, third unconsciousness would ensue in about 45 seconds.

Firstly you would call in a flight attendant to assist, and therefore not have two pilots fighting the same fire while no one is flying the plane. Flight attendants are trained in fire fighting, and they are the crew that fight the fire if it's in the cabin.

If a fire and issues resulting from it, ie merely controlling the aircraft were too huge there would be no time to call for help and efforts to fight a fire fed by bottled oxygen would be futile. The only way to stem a blow torch is to close the O2 supply in another compartment under the floor which itself was probably engulfed in fire.

Secondly if the fire was too much for one pilot to handle I suggest it's probably uncontained, or at least a big enough issue not bother with programming an autopilot immediately.

Unless of course pilots had already turned around due to a preceding electrical emergency making for Singapore.

Singapore being a superior choice because of the high ground between IGARI and Kuala Lumpur. That after the turn was completed the fire then developed and in the mere seconds available to respond the fire also explosively decompressed the aircraft.

If the fire was contained then why didn't they land at the nearest suitable airport? The crew would have used the smoke removal proceedure and diverted to the nearest suitable alternate. No pilot would continue flying anywhere after they've extinguished a fire. If you've got a fire you squawk 7700, you don't turn the transponder off.

The route out over the Indian Ocean suggests a course over or near Singapore which infers pilots did intend an emergency landing. They were flying an almost fully loaded aircraft which still had fuel for 7.5 hours. Therefore just any small runway was not going to do.

reply to post by WanDash


FlightRadar24 only tracks transponders, and only ADS-b transponders. It wouldn't show anything.

Zaphod58
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

My reply was sarcastic towards the one that I was replying to.

apologies

reply to post by sy.gunson


No worries. Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Thank you.

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

Inmarsat and AAIB are qualified to know their stuff, they know more than you about the data, the details and the investigation and have concluded your theory of 'fire' as EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, so no matter how much you throw your dummy out the pram and calling me names, you are probably wrong and the guys qualified to say so, say so. Face the facts, making little conspiracy theories that are against the facts only proves your lack of facts.

I suggest you write to Inmarsat and AAIB, tell them your theory, do you think they didn't consider 'fire', 'structural', 'accidental' etc as a first call, pretty sure they did and their conclusion is that it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, but hey some guy making conspiracy theories on ATS doesn't agree, he want's his own theory. Tantrum much? At least you are a good case study for the psychology students.

edit on 25-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

I don't run off to board administraors and spit the dummy in public... I allow you to do that.

INMARSAT are in the satellite communications business and they have done their stuff plotting the course by data analysis.

AAIB are not involved directly in analysis of the disappearance. If you have evidence that they have considered the scenario of an avionics fire triggering an explosive decompression then please post your evidence?

Have you any evidence or are you hiding behind the skirts of the AAIB because you have no evidence?

Zaphod58
reply to post by WanDash

 

FlightRadar24 only tracks transponders, and only ADS-b transponders. It wouldn't show anything.

I think what he refers to is that just after passing waypoint IGARI the last transponder transmission gave a 40 degree turn west, not east and flying at 35,000ft.

WanDash
If the data sy.gunson has been turned toward is accurate - being that MH 370 turned right (rather than 'left') at/about the time it disappeared from primary radar...then, flew a direct (virtually) route to the southern Indian Ocean...

This would mean that the plane would have tracked back through the radar-field it had just left...in a short time span.
Does that "radar" (flightradar24), and/or the Malaysian military radar...only track active transponders?
Wouldn't the plane have shown as a blip or some unidentifiable return, when passing back through the primary radar field of Kuala Lumpur's towers?
Does anyone have access to (or - can give a link) FlightRadar24's displays for the hour or so after MH 370 disappeared from view?

The Malaysian military radar purported to have tracked the plane back across the peninsular, and into the Strait of Malacca...
Thailand's military radar was reported to have, likewise, tracked the plane (later determination) south across the Gulf of Thailand, then across Kota Bahru to the Straits of Malacca...
Isn't that awful coincidental?
One of the biggest mystery disappearances of modern times...and, there's another unidentified craft darting around in the same vicinity...leading military investigators away from the...peer reviewed Inmarsat Answer?

How many coincidences does it take to raise a hackle?

Your point is valid that were the transponder still working and it turned back to an area of radar coverage then the same SSR radar would have re-acquired the target.

However had a fire been a cascading consequence of a creeping electrical failure it could be that the transponder was knocked out by power surges rather than physically switched of by a pilot.

Yes I have seen links to replays of that flight with surrounding traffic. I thought I bookmarked it but can't find the bookmark. I will attempt to find it and post it later. Meantime I did find these references:

Radarbox replay

Facebook replay

This might be the right link:

flightradar24

A theory I'd like opinions on, based on what's known thus far...

1. Terrorists attach a canister to the air supply with a mechanism for releasing a deadly gas at xx,xxx feet altitude.
2. Before passing out, the (hero) pilot is able to program the plane to fly the most remote path possible, over water.
3. Plane eventually runs out of fuel and crashes into the ocean.

Is this too simplistic?
-cwm