MH370 missing (Part 2)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Mikeultra

Show me any manmade system, that is real, and is confirmed to exist that requires zero maintenance or human intervention.

You can't, because everything breaks eventually. And there is no way a mechanic is going to miss a power supply not connected to the bus, or a computer for that matter.

It is not a question of a power supply not being connected. Elements of a relay can burn out through age,wear and overload conditions. Diodes are one way electrical gates which burn out and when that happens current will flow towards any defective generator. In that instance the defective generator needs to be isolated and an alternate relay bus used to bypass a burned out Diode.

The heat and arcing which such failures cause can - and have in the past started fires inside aircraft cabins.

The B777 has five different power sources Left and Right engine generators, plus lower output auxiliary generators on each engine and the APU which can't be restated above 22,000ft. There is also a RAT propeller turned generator which deploys if all other five sources fail, but the RAT is insufficient to drive anything more than basic flight controls.

There are two electrical relays and five processors in the avionics bay all designed to share and distribute the electrical load. The B777 autopilot is designed to briefly keep flying the aircraft through a power interruption until the power supply is re-instated. The aircraft is also designed so that the power is automatically re-directed in the event of a power failure without human intervention.

Thus in the event of a major electrical failure followed by depressurisation whether pilots are dead or alive, the aircraft will re-establish electrical systems and seek to re-initalise any communications systems like ACARS if they are knocked offline.

What is questionable is whether it can re-establish log on codes without human intervention.

originally posted by: earthling42
My opinion is that a fire is not the cause, it has been flying for 7,5 hours until fuel starvation.
A fire would have brought the aircraft down well before it did run out of fuel in my opinion.

Nonsense Ethan, as you well know since we've discussed this before, any fire at 35,000ft would self extinguish from oxygen starvation.

However a fire which begins inside the cabin would rage uncontrollably until it melts an escape path through the thin aluminium skin like this:


(above): ABX Air at SFO in 2008

or this

(above): Egyptair flight 667 in 2011

or this

(above): Egyptair flight 667 in 2011

After melting an escape path the fire would flare out through such a hole until pressure inside the cabin has equalised with the outside air. As pressure reduce the flame would decrease and flicker until the flame extinguishes.

Such a fire would not result in total or even major destruction of the airframe. Just localised severe damage. The brain of the autopilot is not in the cockpit and it is quite conceivable the aircraft could suffer such a fire and continue flying with both pilots fatally incapacitated.

It has been said that ACARS can be switched off, but not completely, the satcom terminal remains active untill the engines stop running.

Knowing this, it is odd that there is a gap between 17:07 until 18:25 in the data that was released.

Why do you have to assume ACARS was ever switched off?

The flaw is with your logic. A power supply interruption explains the loss of contact. Electrical systems in a Boeing 777 are regenerated automatically without human intervention.

They have been trying to contact the aircraft but without success, and at 18:25 the satcom terminal came back online and did a log-in request.

So was there some kind of electrical problem on board, what could cause a power outage which leads to a shutdown of the satcom terminal.

And how would that affect the instrumentation and communication equipment aboard the aircraft.
This was a night flight, without the transponder they are flying blind through an area with a lot of traffic.

The B777 electrical system is a lot like the human nervous system. If a person is knocked unconscious then in a coma like state some automatic systems will continue to run. The heart will keep its rthym and organs will function but higher order functions cease until they reawaken.

That is entirely what happened to MH370.

It can be inferred before MH370 went to sleep for whatever reason pilots had turned the aircraft south and the autopilot still kept flying the last direction it was pointed in.

After the disappearance of flight MH370 another aircraft from Malaysia Airlines had to make an emergency landing in Japan after an electrical generator failed.

You are referring to MH088 which made an emergency landing in Hong Kong after all engine generators died and it was forced to land using just the APU. That is a huge indictment of poor maintenance at MAS.

Is it far fetched to think that MH370 was also flying with a malfunctioning generator, and when the other generator broke down, the APU did not start.

MH370 may well have had a generator failure but that is not the cause. the cause appears to be a fire in the avionics bay possibly caused by a failure in one of the bus relays.

possibly pilots could have isolated the fault before the fire/catastrophe. The B777 however may have isolated the fault automatically without pilot intervention.

MH370's alleged flight path through the Straits of Malacca is based upon this image presented to Chinese relatives at the Lido hotel in Beijing on 21 March:



Prior to that however the Malaysian government insisted MH370 flew IGARI-VAMPI-GIVAL-IGREX. There has never been any explanation why they were telling relatives one thing and the rest of the world a different version?

VAMPI GIVAL IGREX

Malaysia simply stopped mentioning the alleged IGARI-VAMPI-GIVAL-IGREX track.

The truth is neither claim is honest. MH370 never flew west to the Straits. It is entirely a hoax by Malaysia.



The image shown to relatives in Beijing does not show the tracks of Emirate UAE343 or SIA68. If it was an authentic radar image it would have to show the tracks of at least three aircraft not just one.

HOAX HOAX HOAX

originally posted by: sy.gunson

originally posted by: Psynic
From the Ozzie report:

"This arc is considered to be the location where the aircraft's fuel was exhausted".

That's a new definition to me.

The arc was created based on the distance between the satellite and the plane and it occurred 7 hours (I believe) after takeoff. The amount of fuel at this point is unknown and only postulated to be exhausted. Furthermore the final signal did not have a doppler offset indicating the direction of travel, meaning it was no longer in the air, but was stationary.

How could an aircraft communicate to a satellite if it had crashed in the ocean?

It couldn't.

Anything coming out of Australia, in light of the previous OUTRAGEOUS reports of "substantive evidence", has to be considered suspect of being disinformation. This report being a prime example.

What you are not considering is that each engine draws fuel off tanks inside their respective wing tanks. One engine invariably runs out before the other meaning one engine will die first. If the aircraft is at altitude it will lose altitude on the remaining engine and likely drop into a spiral descent due to all the remaining thrust on one engine. As aircraft with asymmetrical thrust is inclined to keep turning towards the dead engine an ever tightening turn will develop into a spiral. This was the case with the Lear Jet of Payne Stewart.

When an aircraft descends from 35,000ft in a spiral descent there will not be any frequency offset because the aircraft has ceased to move discernibly either away from or towards the satellite. To be able to detect such a spiral from frequency offset one needs to be able to detect frequency shift finer than 0.0000064 which is not possible given the 0.000125 sec time delays inherent in the aircraft's own wiring relays.

Stewart's Lear hit the ground at mach .9 in a near vertical corkscrewing dive.

Not a gentle "spiralling descent".

EVERY single component of the Lear was in pieces.

If anything similar had happened to MH370 there would be THOUSANDS of pieces of debris scattered over THOUSANDS of square miles and SOMETHING would have been found.

No flotsam = No jet.

Recent changes in laws governing electronic communication devices confirm MH370 was hijacked and the search of the Southern Indian Ocean is nothing but a red herring designed, like your posts, to bore us into submission.

a reply to: sy.gunson

Which would be a good question if we were talking about the same thing. I was referring to the claim that the BUAP was installed and no mechanics would know about it.

a reply to: Psynic

I never used the words gentle spiral descent. takes quite a while to come down from 35,000ft and incidentally Stewart Payn'es Lear Jet did not begin descent at Mach 0.9. It was described as entering a cork-screwing spiral which tightened into a dive.

If you're so easily bored by real facts no wonder you wish to spin a huge conspiracy?

I think the call it Attention Deficit Disorder accompanied by narcissistic tendencies.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It is well known that the B777 has an autopilot which can't be interrupted by a temporary power failure. Big deal.

You're trying to spin a massive conspiracy theory out of a simple safety feature in the autopilot with nothing except unsupported conjecture as your evidence

a reply to: sy.gunson

I'm not the one saying it, so get off your high horse.

originally posted by: sy.gunson
The image shown to relatives in Beijing does not show the tracks of Emirate UAE343 or SIA68. If it was an authentic radar image it would have to show the tracks of at least three aircraft not just one.

You sure? That's military radar, not ATC radar. If I was designing a military radar system, I'd build in a switch to show or hide correlated targets, to make it easier to see uncorrelated/unknown targets. I don't know if their radar has such a switch or not but what makes you think it doesn't?

A 777 made an emergency landing at Midway Island due to burning odor and failing electronics.

ATS thread

Connection? We'll have to see what is determined to be the source of the problem.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sy.gunson
The image shown to relatives in Beijing does not show the tracks of Emirate UAE343 or SIA68. If it was an authentic radar image it would have to show the tracks of at least three aircraft not just one.

You sure? That's military radar, not ATC radar. If I was designing a military radar system, I'd build in a switch to show or hide correlated targets, to make it easier to see uncorrelated/unknown targets. I don't know if their radar has such a switch or not but what makes you think it doesn't?

This (alleged) radar image was presented to Chinese relatives on 21 March as the plot for MH370 on Butterworth's military radar. That radar is a Thales Raytheon GM400.

Does anybody have an image from a similar Thales Raytheon GM400 for comparison?

I am not defending the image... as far as i am concerned it was a hoax image anyway.

I just decided to answer my own question. This image is a real Thales Raytheon GM400 series radar screen. Nothing like the image Malaysia claims was produced from the Butterworth GM400 radar.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sy.gunson
The image shown to relatives in Beijing does not show the tracks of Emirate UAE343 or SIA68. If it was an authentic radar image it would have to show the tracks of at least three aircraft not just one.

You sure? That's military radar, not ATC radar. If I was designing a military radar system, I'd build in a switch to show or hide correlated targets, to make it easier to see uncorrelated/unknown targets. I don't know if their radar has such a switch or not but what makes you think it doesn't?

Butterworth has a GM400 Primary Radar not SSR therefore perhaps you should explain how a primary radar can de-select a target?

The brochure for the Ground Master GM400 refers to Graceful degradation of screen phosphors therefore even if one de-selected a target like UAE343 why does the phosphor track not remain on screen after it has been filtered out?

Since Malaysia previously revealed Butterworth operators were not aware of the identities of civil airline traffic on that night, why would they give preference to any particular track over any other?

People still are working on this, it of course has taken a back seat to the MH17 but this blog of Duncan Steel shows that many people are not letting this go away like MSM is.
Anyone can participate and add info or ask questions. It is a huge blog with experts in all fields participating. Here is the Link
They are now looking into a sailoress who has joined the blog and who reported her sighting on her blog to authorities back in March that she might have seen the missing plane while sailing from Cochin, India to Phuket, Thailand.

On the night in question (7th-8th March), I was standing a night watch alone. Well, sitting, really. Watching the stars, since I had been spending the passage identifying and learning a new constellation every night. And I thought I saw a burning plane cross behind our stern from port to starboard; which would have been approximately North to South. It was about half the height of other flights which I had been gazing at during that part of the passage.

Since that’s not something you see every day, I questioned my mind. I was looking at what appeared to be an elongated plane glowing bright orange, with a trail of black smoke behind it. It did occur to me it might be a meteorite. But I thought it was more likely I was going insane.

Very interesting reads indeed...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: sy.gunson
The image shown to relatives in Beijing does not show the tracks of Emirate UAE343 or SIA68. If it was an authentic radar image it would have to show the tracks of at least three aircraft not just one.

You sure? That's military radar, not ATC radar. If I was designing a military radar system, I'd build in a switch to show or hide correlated targets, to make it easier to see uncorrelated/unknown targets. I don't know if their radar has such a switch or not but what makes you think it doesn't?

Butterworth has a Thales Raytheon GM400 military radar. Unlike Indonesia which does integrate both military and civil radar, in Malaysia military radar is not integrated to their civilian radar system.

Malaysia has three GM400 sites and all three military radar are integrated with each other so that the screens from other sites can be monitored remotely. Those three sites are at Butterworth, Kuantan and Kota Bharu. Neither Kota Bharu nor Kuantan with coverage of IGARI saw this mythical turn back by MH370. That has been confirmed by the JACC in an interview which Angus Houston gave with the Malaysian Chronicle on 24 June.

www.malaysia-chronicle.com...:confirmed-malaysian-radar-was-wrong-about-mh370-plane-did-not-do-kamikaz e-dive&Itemid=2#axzz36eNRjlg3

This is an image from the screen of an identical GM400 at Kuantan in which Mig 29s based at Kuantan are intercepting a suspect aircraft. IGARI is in the right of this screen.



By contrast this is the screen of an Aton-S training system which Malaysia uses to replicate their actual civilian SSR radar system:



And this is their Selex civilian SSR radar system in operation since 2009



In a civilian SSR system like this one in Melbourne the primary radar returns are marked modestly with an " X "



Transponder radar tags look like this:

originally posted by: whatnext21
People still are working on this, it of course has taken a back seat to the MH17 but this blog of Duncan Steel shows that many people are not letting this go away like MSM is.
Anyone can participate and add info or ask questions. It is a huge blog with experts in all fields participating. Here is the Link
They are now looking into a sailoress who has joined the blog and who reported her sighting on her blog to authorities back in March that she might have seen the missing plane while sailing from Cochin, India to Phuket, Thailand.

On the night in question (7th-8th March), I was standing a night watch alone. Well, sitting, really. Watching the stars, since I had been spending the passage identifying and learning a new constellation every night. And I thought I saw a burning plane cross behind our stern from port to starboard; which would have been approximately North to South. It was about half the height of other flights which I had been gazing at during that part of the passage.

Since that’s not something you see every day, I questioned my mind. I was looking at what appeared to be an elongated plane glowing bright orange, with a trail of black smoke behind it. It did occur to me it might be a meteorite. But I thought it was more likely I was going insane.

Very interesting reads indeed...

That woman is an attention seeker who needs attention from mental health professionals

Firstly there is no way a jet airliner can burn for an hour.

Second she says she saw it flying low.

Due to the radar horizon Butterworth could not see an aircraft at the sailoress' location (near MEKAR) beneath 29,000 feet so all this woman is up to is another shameless hoax and yet more disinformation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sy.gunson

I'm not the one saying it, so get off your high horse.

High Horse as you put it is a principle called

Truth

The simple yet effective motto of our membership is "deny ignorance" however if all members do is spin conjecture without proof and pay no attention to simple facts then they are spinning ignorance.

a reply to: sy.gunson

SOmething I haven't seen before from my friend

MH370 is still something I check on. This is an interesting analysis that shows that a landing and 20 min holdover is indeed consistent with the known satellite data. The strip at Banda Aceh is normally closed at night but the lights can be activated by telephone (and there is a record of a cell call from the copilot's phone, said to have been incomplete, but the lights respond to the ringing of the number, not to anyone answering). There are many scenarios that are consistent with the data.

and barely understand, see what you think.

www.dropbox.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.dropbox.com... fr/2014-08-03%20MH370%20Land%20at%20Banda%20Aceh%20Rev0.pdf

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



MH370 Land at Banda Aceh

Thanks, this is a working link

a reply to: earthling42


Thank You I can never get it to work.