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.
bobs_uruncle
LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!
Hogwash i say.....
Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel. It doesn't make sense and sounds like a red-herring to get everyone to "look over there" because something else is going on "over here." The CIA and US Navy did this when the Helderberg went down in the Indian Ocean in 1987. The US government needed to get the p239 off the downed plane (even in 15000 feet of water) before anyone else, like the SRO crew, found it. Is this situation the same with MH370, who knows? I haven't researched it as intensely as I did the Helderberg, partly because that p239 on the Helderberg was for my project and my CO was supposed to be on board. What I do know however, is that if a targeted person or target cargo is on a commercial airline, the intelligence community considers everyone on board acceptable losses. I avoid planes like the plague, especially since my time in Brussels when airport security had to remove two suitcase bombs from a commercial plane I was boarding. Do some serious research into Pan Am 103, Swiss Air 111 and the Helderberg SA295 and you'll see what I mean, too many targets and linkages.
Cheers - Daveedit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
bobs_uruncle
LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!
Hogwash i say.....
Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel. It doesn't make sense and sounds like a red-herring to get everyone to "look over there" because something else is going on "over here." The CIA and US Navy did this when the Helderberg went down in the Indian Ocean in 1987. The US government needed to get the p239 off the downed plane (even in 15000 feet of water) before anyone else, like the SRO crew, found it. Is this situation the same with MH370, who knows? I haven't researched it as intensely as I did the Helderberg, partly because that p239 on the Helderberg was for my project and my CO was supposed to be on board. What I do know however, is that if a targeted person or target cargo is on a commercial airline, the intelligence community considers everyone on board acceptable losses. I avoid planes like the plague, especially since my time in Brussels when airport security had to remove two suitcase bombs from a commercial plane I was boarding. Do some serious research into Pan Am 103, Swiss Air 111 and the Helderberg SA295 and you'll see what I mean, too many targets and linkages.
Cheers - Daveedit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
dethfromabuv
This last partial ping is interesting..
Hishammuddin Hussein, the defense minister and acting transport minister, said that the plane appeared to have sent a last, partial satellite signal eight minutes after a previously disclosed electronic “handshake” between the plane and a satellite at 8:11 a.m. on March 8. The incomplete signal represented a “partial handshake,” he said. “At this time, this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work,” Mr. Hishammuddin said.
If they were hourly, why would they suddenly pick up another ping 8 minutes after the last?
Did the pings provide the plane info within them? If not, unless you can explain why 370 would ping, could they be seeing another airplane that was obviously in the same area as 370?edit on 25-3-2014 by dethfromabuv because: clarity
bobs_uruncle
F4guy
bobs_uruncle
LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!
Hogwash i say.....
Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel.
Cheers - Daveedit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
When you take off, you don't just fuel up enough to make the trip. By regulation, you must take off with enough fuel to fly to the destination, fly the instrument approach procedure, plus enough to then fly to a chosen alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of fuel. And if you have made arrangements for cheaper fuel at home base than at the destination, you might choose to ferry some fuel around. And many pilots will carry some "insurance" fuel although our companies frown on it because it uses fuel to carry extra fuel.
Plus, miles at the end of the trip are "cheaper in fuel. During the first hour of the trip you will burn more than 7 tons of fuel in the 777. For the last hour you will burn less than 6.
Fuel has weight, that has to be part of the fueling equation. Planes do not carry more than they need for the trip and as you say insurance purposes. The maximum amount of fuel carried on the plane should have been for roughly 2600 miles plus 250 miles (1 hour of approach circling) plus 1 hour of additional flight time or 500 miles which gives us a grand total of 4350 miles. So where did the extra 1000+ miles come from?
I flew (as pax) from Johannesburg to Kinchasa, where we were going to refuel because we were almost running on fumes in a 747-200b. Kinchasa didn't have any, so we flew from Kinchasa back to Brazzaville and you should have seen that pilot sweating when he came out of the cockpit. After a short conversation and my explaining my interest in the situation, he told me that he had 6 minutes of fuel left. So, what they are supposed to have and what they do have can some times be two totally different things.
Cheers - Daveedit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
F4guy
Your knowledge of fuel requirements is based on 1 trip riding in the back of a 747. I have spent 8,000 hours watching fuel gauges on turbine transport category aircraft. You made some miscalculations and omissions. One hour of approach circling is not worth 250 miles. At approach altitudes (2000 feet +/-) and approach configuration the Rolls Royce Trents are burning 12 tons per hour. That same 36,000 gallons will give you almost 3 hours at economy cruise (.78 Mach) at 37,000 feet. It won't do quite as well at a normal cruise of .84 Mach. And you left out the mandated fuel for getting from the initial destination to the filed alternate. Given the scarcity of adequate landing facilities in mainland China, you could easily be looking at another hour of fuel required.
F4guy
bobs_uruncle
F4guy
bobs_uruncle
LightningStrikesHere
Nope! Sorry not buying it!
Hogwash i say.....
Me neither, 3000 miles of fuel does not make for 5200 to 5400 miles of travel.
Cheers - Daveedit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
When you take off, you don't just fuel up enough to make the trip. By regulation, you must take off with enough fuel to fly to the destination, fly the instrument approach procedure, plus enough to then fly to a chosen alternate airport, plus another 45 minutes of fuel. And if you have made arrangements for cheaper fuel at home base than at the destination, you might choose to ferry some fuel around. And many pilots will carry some "insurance" fuel although our companies frown on it because it uses fuel to carry extra fuel.
Plus, miles at the end of the trip are "cheaper in fuel. During the first hour of the trip you will burn more than 7 tons of fuel in the 777. For the last hour you will burn less than 6.
Fuel has weight, that has to be part of the fueling equation. Planes do not carry more than they need for the trip and as you say insurance purposes. The maximum amount of fuel carried on the plane should have been for roughly 2600 miles plus 250 miles (1 hour of approach circling) plus 1 hour of additional flight time or 500 miles which gives us a grand total of 4350 miles. So where did the extra 1000+ miles come from?
I flew (as pax) from Johannesburg to Kinchasa, where we were going to refuel because we were almost running on fumes in a 747-200b. Kinchasa didn't have any, so we flew from Kinchasa back to Brazzaville and you should have seen that pilot sweating when he came out of the cockpit. After a short conversation and my explaining my interest in the situation, he told me that he had 6 minutes of fuel left. So, what they are supposed to have and what they do have can some times be two totally different things.
Cheers - Daveedit on 3/25.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)
Your knowledge of fuel requirements is based on 1 trip riding in the back of a 747. I have spent 8,000 hours watching fuel gauges on turbine transport category aircraft. You made some miscalculations and omissions. One hour of approach circling is not worth 250 miles. At approach altitudes (2000 feet +/-) and approach configuration the Rolls Royce Trents are burning 12 tons per hour. That same 36,000 gallons will give you almost 3 hours at economy cruise (.78 Mach) at 37,000 feet. It won't do quite as well at a normal cruise of .84 Mach. And you left out the mandated fuel for getting from the initial destination to the filed alternate. Given the scarcity of adequate landing facilities in mainland China, you could easily be looking at another hour of fuel required.
The transponder was turned off. Why would a pilot or co-pilot want his plane to go silent if he intended to ditch his plane? Why would he not want his crash site ever found? What would it matter to him once he was dead? More important still, do you think his colleague would sit idly by knowing that the guy had switched off radar contact and radically changed course away from the planned destination without telling ground control? Of course not! Something still stinks about the whole episode. Resorting to unproven, facile reasons that leave other questions unanswered hardly amounts to a plausible explanation.
Gazrok
Besides all this BS about radical new math. It's the frickin' Doppler Effect people....we use it every damn day on the local news. Yet mainstream media is trying to make out like it is borderline magic....
bobs_uruncle
dethfromabuv
This last partial ping is interesting..
Hishammuddin Hussein, the defense minister and acting transport minister, said that the plane appeared to have sent a last, partial satellite signal eight minutes after a previously disclosed electronic “handshake” between the plane and a satellite at 8:11 a.m. on March 8. The incomplete signal represented a “partial handshake,” he said. “At this time, this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work,” Mr. Hishammuddin said.
If they were hourly, why would they suddenly pick up another ping 8 minutes after the last?
Did the pings provide the plane info within them? If not, unless you can explain why 370 would ping, could they be seeing another airplane that was obviously in the same area as 370?edit on 25-3-2014 by dethfromabuv because: clarity
None of it makes sense as I said in another thread and if it was a second plane, well stick a false VOR beacon on it that is always 100km's from the plane and if it is on autopilot, the plane will follow the VOR until it runs out of fuel. But then it all comes down to motive, this is a huge expense, why would someone do this? Who stands to gain and why is the wizard of oz saying "look over here?"
I don't know but I think there is more to this story, it will surface in about a week or two and it will come out of alternative media sources. With all of our technology and "safety" protocols, you can't just lose a 777 with 239 people on it, say "oh well" and shrug it off.
Cheers - Dave
Gazrok
Right on the money.
Besides all this BS about radical new math. It's the frickin' Doppler Effect people....we use it every damn day on the local news. Yet mainstream media is trying to make out like it is borderline magic....
The article I cited
F4guy
bobs_uruncle
dethfromabuv
This last partial ping is interesting..
Hishammuddin Hussein, the defense minister and acting transport minister, said that the plane appeared to have sent a last, partial satellite signal eight minutes after a previously disclosed electronic “handshake” between the plane and a satellite at 8:11 a.m. on March 8. The incomplete signal represented a “partial handshake,” he said. “At this time, this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work,” Mr. Hishammuddin said.
If they were hourly, why would they suddenly pick up another ping 8 minutes after the last?
Did the pings provide the plane info within them? If not, unless you can explain why 370 would ping, could they be seeing another airplane that was obviously in the same area as 370?edit on 25-3-2014 by dethfromabuv because: clarity
None of it makes sense as I said in another thread and if it was a second plane, well stick a false VOR beacon on it that is always 100km's from the plane and if it is on autopilot, the plane will follow the VOR until it runs out of fuel. But then it all comes down to motive, this is a huge expense, why would someone do this? Who stands to gain and why is the wizard of oz saying "look over here?"
I don't know but I think there is more to this story, it will surface in about a week or two and it will come out of alternative media sources. With all of our technology and "safety" protocols, you can't just lose a 777 with 239 people on it, say "oh well" and shrug it off.
Cheers - Dave
I hate to beat up on your theory, but we haven't used VORs (Very highfrequency Omnidirectional Ranges) for primary international navigation for years. Redundant INS (Inertial Navigation Systems) are now standard equipment. A VOR , with its 250 mile max range, isn't much good when you're 2000 miles from the nearest land. Our flight Management Systems (we don't call them autopilots, anymore) don't "home in" on radio stations. They fly the aircraft to a fixed latitude and longitude (and sometimes altitude)which, more often than not, have an ID in the software for ease of entry. For backup there are instruments in the cockpit that do relate to radio navigation such as an OBS/CDI or slaved flight director. But with the increasing prevalence of "glass cockpits" these steam gauges are disappearing.
Biigs
It could have been somthing spectacularly wrong with the pilots food maybe?