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

reply to post by WanDash


They didn't say who initiated the ping. It may have come from the plane trying to report a problem, or it may have been from the satellite.

civpop
Someone was looking for info on the body washed ashore? Was it Onehuman?

Anyway all I could find was the following links, nothing about dogs so far.

Link Graphic Image

Surely no passanger would ever make shore because of the so called crash location? Not only that any body would be eaten by sharks would it not?
All fishy if you ask me!

Zaphod58
reply to post by WanDash

 

They didn't say who initiated the ping. It may have come from the plane trying to report a problem, or it may have been from the satellite.

Do you happen to know "who" the "They" is/are/were...that are reporting this?
I wouldn't think it would have come from the plane - as...it is, supposedly 'the plane' that didn't respond (acknowledge).

Question actually being - It was all 'automated' up to 8:11 ...and then, 8 minutes later someone decides "Hey - it's time to start trying to track that plane" - and sends a non-automated (or - manual) ping request...and receives no reply...(?)

Unless they were pinging the heck out of it from the moment it disappeared (and are keeping that info under cover) - why start trying to 'ping' it, then...?

There were still 52 minutes before its next scheduled "report".

The engines could be programmed to connect (ping) upon detecting an anomaly. Shutting down by flame out from lack of fuel, for example, would cause some bells to go off.

RP2SticksOfDynamite

civpop
Someone was looking for info on the body washed ashore? Was it Onehuman?

Anyway all I could find was the following links, nothing about dogs so far.

Link Graphic Image

Surely no passanger would ever make shore because of the so called crash location? Not only that any body would be eaten by sharks would it not?
All fishy if you ask me!

I was posting as someone was asking what happened to the report and couldn't find it themselves.

To be fair the whole thing is fishy!

reply to post by WanDash


Inmarsat. The plane wasn't sending data, but it's still going to try to do what it's supposed to do, which is send a report when there's a problem. It would have to handshake the satellite before it sent the data.

The plane WAS acknowledging the satellite pings. It just wasn't sending any data. If it hadn't been acknowledging them it would have stopped pinging it.

Zaphod58
reply to post by WanDash

 

They didn't say who initiated the ping. It may have come from the plane trying to report a problem, or it may have been from the satellite.

Given the sat was just doing a keep alive every hour, it would seem to be a good guess that it was the plane. Also allude to a failed logon which might indicate corrupted signal/data. Just speculation.

For me this explanation is the most plausible and most likely to have happened. The pilot was on a suicide mission, switched off the comms, turned the plane, knocked out the PAX, crew and himself, probably by altitude, then the plane flew on using autopilot until it ran out of fuel. More aviation investigation experts are agreeing on this.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

17.21 USA Today takes a similar line, reporting that the pilot of the missing Malaysia Airlines jet is believed to be solely responsible for the flight being taken hundreds of miles off course and there is no evidence of a mechanical failure or hijacking by a passenger, according to a top investigator involved in the investigation.

17.10 A New Zealand criminologist says that evidence currently backs up the theory that the captain of the missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft was on a suicide mission.

Professor Greg Newbold, who lectures on terrorism at the University of Canterbury, told the New Zealand Herald that the only person who could have changed MH370's computerised flight plan and switched off its electronics was someone who was highly experienced.

""We know that after changing course, the aircraft flew briefly above its maximum ceiling. If the pilot had then depressurised the aircraft, all passengers and the crew - including the pilot - would have lost consciousness within a few minutes," Professor Newbold said.

"From here, the re-computerised flight plan would have allowed the plane to fly itself at a predetermined altitude and course until it eventually ran out of fuel and crashed.

"If this is correct, it would explain why no one on board apparently attempted to raise the alarm using a cellphone."

I was wondering if the US navy could use a sub to search for a signal from the black box? The US nuclear attack subs are very fast and I was thinking the closest one or two could have been in the search areas trying to pick up a signal.

reply to post by JimTSpock


Any type of sonar system should be able to hear it. In fact in the early days of the search Singapore sent a sub to try to listen for the pingers.

Boeing must have a complete understand of the plane and what gets reported by what means and why.

There is always the odd happening like if water hit some of the electronics something in the system changed briefly and then everything died.

Zapiod, any chance emergency location data is attempted to be sent to the satellite?

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


Any motive for this "suicide" or is it just more conjecture???


BTW...
If a suicide mission why change direction???

Why not keep it on course & depressurise the plane for the same outcome???

Way too far fetched... & a lack of motive & end game makes it even harder to believe!!!

They want to blame the Pilot & ignore everything they've told us so far that's points to everything else!!!


Peace TAT!

RP2SticksOfDynamite
Surely no passanger would ever make shore because of the so called crash location? Not only that any body would be eaten by sharks would it not?
All fishy if you ask me!

If it went down where they now think, no bodies would have washed ashore yet.

The red boxes show today's search areas which apparently include drift due to ocean currents from the presumed crash site:

news.yahoo.com...


If it went down somewhere else then it's possible, but as you can see those red search areas where bodies might be found are a long way from land.

reply to post by roadgravel


The ELT is a general area broadcast, as well as sent to a different satellite. That satellite links directly to a SAR control center IIRC.

A French website (www.franceinfo.fr) says the below satellite pictures were taken by a Satellite owned by Airbus Defence and Space

The article says they were published today.

I have NO idea if this is true or not.

The MSM has lost ALL credibility with me so just throwing this out there...

Impossible to state categorically that it is the Boeing 777 Malaysia Airlines. Still images taken by a satellite Airbus Defence and Space show dozens of floating objects in an area of ​​400 sq km of the Indian Ocean, where it is believed that the flight crashed. To be sure, we must now successfully recovered.

Objects one meter long, others 23 meters ... It is revealed new satellite images, taken by Airbus Defence and Space, and published Wednesday. Sharper images, it seems that those previously reported by Australia, China and France.

A total of 122 objects were spotted in the open Indian Ocean, in an area of ​​400 km ², south-west of Perth, on the west coast of Australia.

Malaysia refuses to confirm that it is debris from the flight MH370, who has been missing for three weeks now. "But this is a new index that will help us better understand operations research," said Transportation Minister Hishammuddin Hussein.

Because to get to the bottom - and can say that it is debris from the Boeing disappeared - it will get their hands on. And these objects have not yet been recovered, despite the dispatch area on 12 aircraft, including seven soldiers. The bad weather is involved.

Without waiting for confirmation, the initial complaint was filed in the United States. Against Boeing and against Malaysia Airlines

The area of ​​the Indian Ocean where debris were spotted:

Boeing disappeared 122 floating debris spotted by satellite

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


Read the report and see how the investigators got to that conclusion.

When all the data and details are factored in, it makes the most sense.

Motive might never be truly established, though it could be political.

These are serious professionals, such as professors specialising in terrorism and air investigations, aviation experts, aviation engineering experts, all of whom have more details of the data etc and relevant qualifications than those just making guesses.

I refuse wasting my time explaining all the specific points though if you read the articles the points that led to such an explanation are obvious and makes sense.

reply to post by Murgatroid


The same report and photo's are on all the major media here in the UK so it is probably real.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Your remark of O2 burning is a fallacy a common misconception .

Yes a broken o2 line blowing on a fire will increase it . Your example hydrocarbon gas + O2 under pressure = oxyacetylene torch similar . With a oxyacetylene torch you can turn the 100 % O2 on then flick a striker (a tool used to start a torch, spark or electric arc) in the O2 stream a million times and it wont ignite you add just a little burnable gas poof you have fire. Ask any welder to show you .

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.

This is only possible with a fuel present .

( Where a fire to develop and a severed oxygen line blows on the fire it would be like a huge blow torch ). This would be correct.

What happened on Egypt air flight 667 was the fuel was hydrocarbons on wiring in plastics and other cockpit controls . The report refers to a oxygen- fuel flame O2 from hose blowing on fire increases heat and combustion rate a mini blow torch. Should that happen when the O2 masks are needed most likely someone is not going to get O2.

the combustion of oxygen has an activation energy.

O2 does not combust or burn. But fuel + O2 has a activation energy . O2 reacts with fuel to create fire or a explosion .

by their oxygen supply catching fire.

O2 cant burn this is a fallacy a common misconception .

O2 supply could have been consumed by a fire .


For a fire you need 3 things .
1 fuel
2 a heat source
3 O2
Remove any one fire goes out . This is simple chemistry fuel + O2+ energy= fire + carbon+water+ ( co or co2 depending on efficiency of the combustion )

Oxygen behaves differently to air, compressed air, nitrogen and other inert gases. It is very reactive. Pure oxygen, at high pressure, such as from a cylinder, can react violently with common materials such as oil and grease. Other materials may catch fire spontaneously. Nearly all materials including textiles, rubber and even metals will burn vigorously in oxygen.

Even a small increase in the oxygen level in the air to 24% can create a dangerous
situation. It becomes easier to start a fire, which will then burn hotter and more
fiercely than in normal air. It may be almost impossible to put the fire out. A leaking
valve or hose in a poorly ventilated room or confined space can quickly increase
the oxygen concentration to a dangerous level.

www.hse.gov.uk...


O2 bottles are labeled flammable is because they will react with a fire and the result is a out of control fire which could be a violent explosion.

fuel combusts, O2 reacts result is fire or combustion

Excess O2 aids ignition of fire, bottled O2 can react violently to fuel sources if a activation energy is present. The term combustion is a reaction which a fuel and O2 react in the presence of energy .

GAS:
OXIDIZER.
CONTACT WITH COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL MAY CAUSE FIRE.
CONTENTS UNDER PRESURE.

Section 5. Fire-fighting measures
Flammability of the product Non-flammable.

Products of combustion No specific data.

Fire hazards in the Extremely flammable in the presence of the following materials or conditions: presence of various reducing materials, combustible materials and organic materials.
substances

www.airgas.com...

msds of compressed O2 from airgas

they sell gas its their business they should know

Flammability of the product Non-flammable.

roadgravel
...Given the sat was just doing a keep alive every hour, it would seem to be a good guess that it was the plane. Also allude to a failed logon which might indicate corrupted signal/data. Just speculation.

First - would you mind pointing me to 'where' you acquired the information that 8 minutes after 8:11, a ping attempt failed...?

Second - if I am understanding what you've stated, above, correctly - it was the satellite/system sending the ping requests every hour...at 11 minutes after the hour... ?

Third - Would the system conclude "failed" ping...if the system did not send the request?

Fourth - From what I recall earlier in the thread - the 'comm' system that the Inmarsat 'pinging' was embedded in, had to do with the entertainment system. If this is not correct - I would like to know, as I do not recall its rebuttal since being introduced.
And - if it was just an "alive and well" kind of ping...why would it try to contact the Inmarsat satellite regarding problems (unless to say - "Lost Gilligan's Island... Please Refresh Server" ...or, something like that)...?

Thanks again.