MH370 missing (Part 2)

a reply to: sy.gunson

So would this be the same with all/any MAS 370 flight services using the Boeing 777 200, and flying the same normal route.
Are you saying it is normal for these flights to go off sites like FR24 at about the same point as the missing plane, when it was no longer tackable on FR24 after 17:21?

I am sure flights including the daily MAS370 flight is trackable on FR24 throughout its journey.

a reply to: UKGuy1805

As long as there is an ADS-B receiver in range, FR24 will track it. Although in Europe they have a new system that doesn't rely on ADS-B to track flights.

originally posted by: UKGuy1805
a reply to: sy.gunson

So would this be the same with all/any MAS 370 flight services using the Boeing 777 200, and flying the same normal route.
Are you saying it is normal for these flights to go off sites like FR24 at about the same point as the missing plane, when it was no longer tackable on FR24 after 17:21?

I am sure flights including the daily MAS370 flight is trackable on FR24 throughout its journey.

Yes it is normal for all Malaysian Airlines flights on this route to do the same things, ie log off with Kuala Lumpur passing IGARI, then log on with Vietnam.

The reason you see it as continuous is because Vietnam and Malaysia both relay their data back to SITA which is headquartered in Singapore. Flightradar24 takes their feed from SITA. The flight data identifying the aircraft does not change.

After 17:21 UTC, SITA continued to register MH370 until 17:27 UTC therefore MH370 was logged on with Vietnam after it turned east.

It may not imply directly that Vietnam detected MH370 through a ground relay station in Vietnam. The transponder could have logged on with Vietnam through a Malaysian radio relay station connected with SITA.

Some airlines subscribe to full satellite coverage by SITA so that when their aircraft run out of coverage from ground based VHF stations satellite coverage takes over. Altitude differences might explain why two aircraft of the same airline may show differently. Also a malfunction with the transponder is another explanation. Also some general electrical fault in an aircraft could cut electrical supply to the transponder.

I note that in the coverage shown on Flightradar24 some aircraft will blink out entirely whilst an adjacent aircraft will continue to show returns. Aircraft which blink out on FR24 are generally at lower altitude I would say, or otherwise are only updating with SITA through VHF ground link in area remote from coverage.

Still waiting for this thing to show up somewhere.

I honestly doubt it just went down in the water, but I also doubt the US or Russian or Europe for that matter have anything to do with the plane vanishing (Like some claim it will be used in a false flag to start WW3, or they wanted the tech on board).

I think it's something else, just not sure what yet.

a reply to: sy.gunson

Well your plotted route would be consistent with the frquency offset.
Flying the same course after BITOD or even more to the east would indicate an even greater velocity away from the satellite.
The fact that the angle is less steep then right after taking off from KL can indicate that it had diverted its course heading south west before the handshake at 18:29.

It would sure be a logical explanation to everything happening that night, including the testimony form the man on the oilrig, this aircraft would have been a lot closer to the oilrig.

A quote from his letter.

I observed (the plane?) burning at a high altitude and on a compass bearing of 265 to 265 from our surface location.
The general position of the observation was perpendicular / south-west of the normal flight paths (we see the con-trails every day) and at a lower altitude than the normal flight paths.
There was no lateral movement, so it was either coming towards or moving away our location.

He estimates the distance at 50-70 km.

The last information from CNN is contradictory, this man said it was flying at a lower altitude, so it did not climb to 39.000ft.

Now let's assume the time of the tremor is wrong and that something came of this plane, an engine or landinggear or cargo? and it was registred when it plunged into the ocean.

Pictures from a plot according to the velocity away or closer to the satellite.



The white line of course is where the aircraft enters Vietnamese airspace.
I kept it clean for anyone who wants to use it.

Another image with ping lines added.



Possible flight path



After it diverted from it's normal flightplan, it must have been descending to a much lower altitude, because according to this plot the speed with which it travelled during normal flight was 473kn, and 330kn after 18:29 until it crashed at the spot where the signals were picked up.
Of course the red line is the plotted path, black lines are flight corridors.
It has been even further away from the satellite, but the handshake was at 18:29 when it was closer to the satellite again.

The path until it crashed.




Photobu cket for bigger images

The cargo manifest is 'secret' but it has been revealed there were lithium batteries on board. May be more than stated. May be the amounted stated was enough for a disaster. Also radios. Did they have lithium batteries installed?

This is an FAA video, seems to be for air crews, about dealing with lithium battery fires in passenger lap tops, etc. Halon 1211 will put out the flames but it does not cool other cells which might be near ignition temperature.

My understanding is the 777 cargo bay is protected will halon.

The point is that if cargo batteries somehow started burning, Halon will stop the flames but without cooling the other cells quickly, thermal run away can occur and allow additional batteries to ignite. Lithium induced fire seems quite serious.

Just thought some here would be interested in this material and the background on lithium battery fires.

Well, this aircraft landed safely, the aircraft’s right-hand landing gear malfunctioned upon takeoff.

Flight MAS192

a reply to: sy.gunson

Heya Sy, good to see you back

I do have a question:

If the plane was indeed in Vietnamese airspace and either crashed/disappeared, how come, hundreds if not thousands working this case are adamant on searching the South Indian Ocean? They are after all, the 'experts'. Do you think there's information that they have that hasn't been made public, that confirms it's down this way? Do you have any thoughts as to why they aren't searching up in the South China Sea any more?

Hope I worded my question okay. I've only had one coffee this morning.

a reply to: roadgravel

The manifest is 'secret' because it's 'sealed evidence' as it is part of an ongoing police investigation (ie, criminal)

There wasn't just Lithium batteries on board (IIRC think it was 200 odd kilograms?), but two-way radios manufactured by Motorola and of course 3-4 tonnes of delicious mangosteens.

and there'd be other cargo on board that's a given, like passenger luggage.

However, there's the big blank as to what else was on board, until that evidence is unsealed and released to the public (if ever..)

a reply to: auroraaus

Are all plane accidents criminal cases? If not why this one. That would mean there is fact that isn't known to the public, something like a bomb or high jack.

They can mention some cargo but not other but it's sealed. Don't sound straight up to me. If concealing cargo is standard, why did they mention it in the first place?

a reply to: roadgravel

Malaysia has opened a criminal investigation into it. It's been classified a criminal investigation since the start of the month.

a reply to: auroraaus

Did you check that video. Those batteries are some serious stuff, especially in quantity. I have to wonder if a fire of that type from few hundred pounds of batteries could be extinguished.

a reply to: roadgravel

Halon in an enclosed environment will put out just about anything. It sucks the oxygen out of the air.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

Halon in an enclosed environment will put out just about anything. It sucks the oxygen out of the air.

Agree, but if an source of oxygen can reenter it will repeat itself. If a breach of the cargo hold happened it might be trouble.

a reply to: roadgravel

A breach of the cargo hold at altitude wouldn't have enough oxygen in it to reignite the fire.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

A breach of the cargo hold at altitude wouldn't have enough oxygen in it to reignite the fire.

Any possibility of it getting to the cabin where there might be more oxygen. I know the battery theory is a long shot, just throwing out some ideas based on the material.

Did the UPS 747 suspected of fire from batteries not have fire suppression. Cargo craft exempt?

a reply to: roadgravel

They were still in the process of installing fire suppression systems on the aircraft. IIRC it was required on new build aircraft, but the refit wasn't required at the time the UPS flight crashed.

That was the flight that they restricted lithium ion batteries on planes after.

Was reviewing a Boeing document.

UPS 747-400 was 2010
OK, the main cargo compartment on the 747-400F is class E.
So it would not have suppression.

That would explain much.

the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a rule change to require airplanes registered in the United States to convert all Class D cargo compartments to Class C or Class E compartments by installing a smoke-detection system (Class E), fire-suppression system, or both (Class C), depending on whether the airplane is a passenger or freighter configuration. Boeing has been supplying the information and installation hardware that operators need to meet the rule change deadline of March 18, 2001.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: auroraaus

Are all plane accidents criminal cases? If not why this one.

Not in the US but apparently it's a common practice in Europe, and I don't know the protocol in Malaysia.

I know France treats all plane accidents as criminal cases, until proven otherwise, and this says many other European countries do the same:

Criminal Liability and Aviation Safety

France … which, like many other European countries, treats all transportation accidents as a crime as well as a civil accident until proven otherwise.

a reply to: Mikeultra

I thought this might interest you given some of your theories. It's from what seems to be an anti lithium battery site recounting many problems with batteries. This opening statement caught my eye.

"LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ARE MADE OVERSEAS BY CHEAP LABOR WHERE OSHA CAN'T WATCH. POOR PEOPLE MAKE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES OFF SHORE WHERE THEY ARE NOT TOLD ABOUT THE TOXIC CANCER, LIVER AND LUNG DISEASES THEY GET FROM THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. SILICON VALLEY VC'S PUSH LITHIUM ION BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE A HUGE PROFIT ON THE CHEAP LABOR BUILDING A BATTERY THAT SELF DESTRUCTS BUILT BY WORKERS WHO DIE FROM TOXIC POISONING. CHINESE, MALAY, MEXICAN AND OTHER WORKERS, SHOULD FILE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS AGAINST SILICON VALLEY VC'S WHO PUSH THESE BATTERIES."

Their uppercase, my bold of the countries.

Maybe the battery workers made up a special shipment. I have no research on whether the workers in those factories are unhappy.