It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?

page: 10
88
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Boeing777

thomasjveil


Much has been made of the fact the pilot and co-pilot didn't request to fly together, but can a pilot request a particular flight? Would they be aware in advance of a particularly valuable payload?



We have a bidding system where you can bid on how your monthly roster will look like-i.e. what destinations you fly to and sometimes which crew. Depending on your seniority, the more senior(more experienced) you are, the more likely your bids are to be accepted. As you stay longer with your airline and gain more experience, you'll gradually move up the seniority list.


Is the same kind system in place across airlines? It sounds like the pilot would have been considered 'senior'?




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Did anyone make on a short for Freescale or Malaysian airlines?

By short I mean stood to make money on the shares like 9/11. It might not be the real reason but it could lead there.
edit on 18-3-2014 by Didya because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2014 by Didya because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


i dont know if its been stated before..

but this plan would require preplanning at the very least prior to take off..

every minute of delay for SIA68 would be a difference of about 15km.. probably out of view range..

in my opinion doesnt seem likely..

if anyone ever wanted to spy on their enemies or allies i guess they should start using this technique, it can hide a 777 so well..



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   

ChocolateStarfish

amraks
20 freescale employees last time I heard it was 4 of them apparently.


20 Freescale employees onboard the flight. 4 of them were part of the patent that had been passed as per earlier posts.
edit on 18-3-2014 by ChocolateStarfish because: (no reason given)


But they weren't.

No-one on that list of 'freescale patent holders' was actually on the passenger list. A very simple piece of cross checking that anyone can do before posting this freescale patent stuff all over the place.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 


By implication it means you have seen the passenger list. Could you please furnish us with this list so we can see it for ourselves please?

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I was sceptical about MH370 being able to hide from radar behind another plane but I'm not a pilot, so I've looked for more informed viewpoints. This is the opinion of a poster on the guardian's comments that seems to know what they're talking about. The guardian have printed the theory now like some other news outlets, rightly or wrongly giving it credibility. He/she makes some very good points.




Oh dear ... I'm a little disappointed that the Graun printed this. Would it have killed you to wait until you'd got an opinion from some professional pilots before giving oxygen to this (no doubt well-intentioned) twit?
I trust someone will ask the crew of SIA68 whether, on the night in question, they encountered any turbulence. It would be unusual if they had none at all. If so, do they remember occasionally bouncing off a Malaysian 777 which had been flying beneath them in perfect formation for hours?

Also, when they made altitude changes and altered course, did they do hand signals out the window to ensure that the Malaysian plane stayed perfectly in position while banking at 400 mph?

Flying sleek, fast, agile, high power-to-weight-ratio little planes in formation is demandingly difficult. Doing so in close formation is even more difficult, and prone to accidents. The whole activity is tough and dangerous even when all the pilots of all the aircraft know precisely what they're going to do next during a series of choreographed manoeuvers.

The idea that a 777 pilot (assuming he could even find the Singapore plane at night) could fly for hours in close formation with another (and completely unaware, therefore offering no cooperation) widebody jet is simply absurd. Large planes create exceptional vortices in the airstream around them— heck, airports enforce miles of separation behind big jets because of this—and it's quite possible that the planes would get sucked together into a collision before many minutes had elapsed.

From a radar point of view, the effectiveness of the technique would be entirely dependent on the quality and power of the radar and the aspect presented by these two planes. What might look like a single blip to a radar over here would be clearly discriminated as two blips by the one over there. I think by now some radar operator in India/wherever would have remembered the Mysterious Amoeba Aeroplane—the one that kept splitting and fusing as it trundled across his screen.
No, it's just nonsense.

I accept that the increasing possibility that the satellite-ping-driven 'search arcs' are a red herring, plus the failure to find any wreckage so far, leaves ample room for wild theories, but surely there is a responsibility to evaluate these for some level of practical realism before printing them?


www.theguardian.com...



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   

angelchemuel
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 


By implication it means you have seen the passenger list. Could you please furnish us with this list so we can see it for ourselves please?

Rainbows
Jane


Yes the passenger list has been available from the time the plane was declared missing.

www.scmp.com...

Malaysia Airlines posted the same list and there is a typed list which was photographed that is also available if you look.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 


WHEREVER THE PLANE IS - IT ENDS IN 'STAN'
Pilot leaves Primary Radar cover heading North West climbing back to around 35,0000 feet and enters a plane corridor through asia where he shadows a plane, PROBABLY KLM 836 - Denpasar - Singapore - Amsterdam or SIA68 / SQ68 Singapore - Barcelona, or several, a very skill-full thing to do and requires much practice with simulators. Flying above or below an unsuspecting jet on the same heading and airspeed until he decides to break off and make a landing. They did this the day after the Malaysian opposition leader, who atleast 1 pilot supported, was imprisoned, maybe just coincidence, Uzbekistan/Afghanistan area looks most likely, maybe landed on airstrip or salt/frozen lake
Passengers knew nothing was wrong untill after touchdown, not much network coverage in Tajikistan, plane has mobile phone jammers fitted anyway, passengers promptly imprisoned by terrorist militia group, but its about time they declared who & why they did it. Maybe they are still trying to hide/sink or destroy aircraft and maybe passengers are being moved to different location from plane







edit on 18-3-2014 by mongrelpom because: spelling

edit on 18-3-2014 by mongrelpom because: spelling



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 

Thank you kindly sir, much appreciated
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

DrHammondStoat
I was sceptical about MH370 being able to hide from radar behind another plane but I'm not a pilot, so I've looked for more informed viewpoints. This is the opinion of a poster on the guardian's comments that seems to know what they're talking about.
They don't seem to have any idea what they are talking about to me, because they seem to be assuming some kind of close formation flying which would not be necessary at all to hide in the radar shadow of another plane. We aren't talking blue angels formations here. You could fly 5000 feet beneath another plane and never have any danger of collision no matter how much turbulence they encountered. If you're slightly off, the radar blips aren't that precise and they would probably never notice if the blip stretched out a little due to that because air traffic controllers are usually paying attention to the transponder information.

Now I'm not supporting this theory and saying it's what happened, I'm just saying that the reasons that poster provided for dismissing the idea completely lack credibility because they don't appreciate the size of the radar shadow, which doesn't necessitate close formation flying at all.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Just some clues from a "LOST" fan:

1. "Two months after the crash, wreckage was found in the Sunda Trench in the Indian Ocean near Bali. All of the passengers were presumed dead. In reality, however, the discovered wreckage was staged by..."

LOSTPEDIA

2. "A new and large period of human activity began in the early 1970s under the leadership of the DHARMA Initiative..."

LOSTPEDIA

3. "In March 1971, United States Naval construction battalions (Seabees) arrived on Diego Garcia to begin the construction of the Communications Station and an airfield."

WIKI

4. Pitbull - Get it Started (year 2012):

"Thriller in Manila, knocking them out like Pacquiao
No Ali, No Frazier, but for now it's off to Malaysia
Two passports, three cities, two countries, one day
Now that's worldwide, if you think it's a game, let's play (dale)"

Youtube

5. Ali vs Frazer: "The F(L)IGHT of the Century (also known as The Fight) is the title boxing writers and historians have given to the boxing match between champion Joe Frazier (26-0, 23 KOs) and challenger Muhammad Ali (31-0, 25 KOs), held on March 8, 1971"



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by markymint
 


Because at that point in the flight it's too heavy. Airliners don't reach 39,000 feet until late in the flight after they burn off fuel and get lighter.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 


The altitude data came from skin return not the transponder.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


The computer in question is the autopilot. There is no way to tell if it was set or not without the FDR.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


But at times you would have to be close, as you crossed an antenna.
edit on 3/18/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


What do you make of this?

Residents of Maldives report low flying jumbo jet flying south.

Maldives overflight would destroy the whole Inmarsat flight arc narrative. Would it not? What's left of it if you can believe the eyewitness accounts?

What could the destination be if the plane was over Maldives flying south? hmmm. Diego Garcia. That would tie up the loose end of why the plane (reportedly) wasn't detected by China/Pakistan/Aussie military radar.




posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 

It is interesting.
If the flight was headed towards Pakistan, as some are saying, it would be easier to stay under the radar by flying over the ocean, or would it? I don't know.
If they did do that, would they have enough fuel to reach Pakistan when flying so low using that flight path?



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hexillion
 


Im not really following your response, since in the article it states that the plane would be virtually invisible to air traffic controllers since its transponders were shut off and it would be 'shadowing' a plane that was flying above or below it. The radar would ping both planes but the receiver would only notice one signal.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
What do you make of this?


Personally I am very skeptical of eyewitness accounts. We had the oil rig worker claim he saw a burning aircraft but was 370nm from the last radar report and would not have been physically able to see the aircraft even if it were on fire. I tend to put more credence in the satellite data until proven otherwise.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


Can you see through steel? Nope. The only way to get a visual on a plane is if it is next to you or in front of you. If it is above or below you you will have a very hard time finding it.

To your other point, planes rely on air traffic controllers to keep them at a safe distance from each other, with a transponder being shut off the ATC's would have to rely on the less than reliable radar ping. And as the person who wrote the tumblr article suggests, if the missing plane was flying under or below the 777 it would be virtually impossible for them or the 777 to notice that this was happening.



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join