Malaysia airlines plane may have crashed 239 people on board #22

[aa9511]

Duncan Steel has calculated ping placement according to five possible speeds. I attached the graphics that correlate with the southern route only.
Then sardakco (in comments) created an overlay using AU's newest map that plots the underwater signals and search area:
http://i.imgur.com/DU2ZYXUl.png
- pretty amazing.

As far as the fluctuating altitudes... Sarah Bajc posted a comment asking Duncan several questions. Despite it being the most difficult comment he said he has had to respond to, for obvious reasons, he provides a thorough and honest response you might find interesting.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/647#comments

Here are the graphics showing different speeds (I had trouble attaching)
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Q_2D_1lab.png
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Q_3D_3.png

Thanks Miley I will take a look at this. Just doing a general glance at the attached image, looks like the speed was set at 350?

 

[21merc7]

I have nothing to add, except:

I am not the one confusing things!!! Lol.

Things are still confused I see. Maybe my paranoid weird conspiracy side needs to calm down.

Besides the crazy thoughts,

this REALLY is a very messed up world situation. No matter what happens daily, WE have to give up needing it to happen now. I got so confused, I have to decide to not read daily, I know nothing will be found that soon. Radio will tell me, or t.v. for others.

Time - deep - deep ocean. It will happen. In time.

 

[SouthAussie]

Uhm... am I the only one that finds this a bit ludicrous, to compare the amount spent in Syria, Libya, or Iraq to the missing plane search costs? What on earth is he comparing and why is he acting like other countries expenditures are expected whatever the cost?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26972045

I too find this more than irritating. While important (and very sad), this is one plane with a limited amount of people on board.

There are countless people who are already feeling the stress and strain of big Govt cuts in our countries - and deaths in other areas that may be attributed to these cuts (thinking of the health sector here .. my DD who is a young RN was very upset about 2 completely unexpected deaths yesterday on her ward .. one which may be attributed to delays due to cuts in $).

There is certainly another element to be considered here when thinking of the massive expenditure.

 

[21merc7]

I've also kept open the theory of it possibly being shot down and they dont want to admit to a bad mistake. The supposed witness in a boat seeing a fire ball has stuck with me.

Im not even convinced of the turn to the left at this point. Werent they looking in the other ocean at first which was on the direct path to Beijing.

It was only after they struggled to find any wreckage in that first ocean that somewhere along the lines people looked at radar and found blips that seemed to show an unknown plane going left. Just not sure how reliable all that data was.

About the only thing certain is all the information has constantly changed since the first days.

ETA: I could have sworn I remember very early on that one of the Malaysia officials said he ordered boats out the very morning after it disappeared. If they shot it down and ordered boats out, I suppose its possible they could have picked up any debri and hid the fact it was shot down.

I have thought from the start plane got shot down accidentally. No one wants to say who or why. For all we know the plane was on fire over the oil rigger.

 

[Batman's Mommy]

I do not understand, at all, how they can say that they "factually" know that the plane flew on a planned, under radar path that took them around the tip of Indonesia and then south. How do they know that much of the route and not the rest?? It doesn't make sense to me that they can know that it did all of that "off the grid" and then not know where it went...exactly. I didn't realize there was "off the grid" and then "further off the grid" or "no grid".

Please someone clarify!!!lease:

 

[21merc7]

I do not understand, at all, how they can say that they "factually" know that the plane flew on a planned, under radar path that took them around the tip of Indonesia and then south. How do they know that much of the route and not the rest?? It doesn't make sense to me that they can know that it did all of that "off the grid" and then not know where it went...exactly. I didn't realize there was "off the grid" and then "further off the grid" or "no grid".

Please someone clarify!!!lease:

No one "Knows" any of that.

It is all ideas, guesses, and speculation. Much like we do here. News is not always factual.....

 

[time]

I too find this more than irritating. While important (and very sad), this is one plane with a limited amount of people on board.

There are countless people who are already feeling the stress and strain of big Govt cuts in our countries - and deaths in other areas that may be attributed to these cuts (thinking of the health sector here .. my DD who is a young RN was very upset about 2 completely unexpected deaths yesterday on her ward .. one which may be attributed to delays due to cuts in $).

There is certainly another element to be considered here when thinking of the massive expenditure.

Earlier, I felt like I was sensing some mixed message. The message about money made it sound like this missing plane was linked to terrorism. The voice stuff makes it sound like it's the pilot/co-pilot (and I assume possible hijacking due to personal problems). IDK. I know what you mean about budget cuts and Australia is really footing a big bill in this search. What makes me so made is that Malaysia was inept (or?) in the first place. If they hadn't been maybe the plane would have been found already.

 

[Hatfield]

I have thought from the start plane got shot down accidentally. No one wants to say who or why. For all we know the plane was on fire over the oil rigger.

Its definitely still a possibility IMO.

One thing I have considered is maybe the reason the transponder and everything else quit working is because it was shot down right at that moment. Maybe it never made the left turn because it got shot down right there.

Its just a theory of course but if they did want to take out the pilot and maybe someone wanted to take out those 20 technical experts maybe they targeted the plane and then since they knew exactly where it fell they sent a cleanup crew ship out to that exact spot the very next day. They could have cleaned up all the surface debris and nobody would be the wiser. The real searches did not start for a couple days after it went missing so they had some time if they did indeed shoot it down somewhere. Either on purpose or by accident.

Its not my top possibility but am not ruling anything out at this point.

The Malaysia officials have me thinking they are hiding something. I have no idea what but they sure come across as not being open and honest especially during early days.

The way they wanted to declare all dead and send everyone over to Austrailia was blatantly obvious. Like go home everyone. Nothing more to see or do here.

 

[Batman's Mommy]

No one "Knows" any of that.

It is all ideas, guesses, and speculation. Much like we do here. News is not always factual.....

It actually makes me feel better about it if it is speculation and guesses. It angers me that they are speaking of it as "factual". I don't believe the majority of what MSM puts out!! I don't know why I chose to believe that! :maddening:

 

[lawstudent]

She told me that during her research on the net, she discovered just like you said, that planes aren't tracked every second and every minute. It it up to the pilots to "check in."

For example, she said let's say there is a trans-atlantic flight. Like let's say Washington-Paris or something. They go up close to Greenland so as to stay as close to any land as possible, in case of emergency landing. That's why the routes are usually curved routes instead of straight lines (which I never could understand).

But once the plane goes out over the deep ocean, there is no radar to track it. Because there are no radar installations in the ocean. Once they are on land, yes there is a lot of radar to track it. But not over the open ocean. So, what happens is that the pilots are required to check-in every 15 minutes during that time.

So let's pilots check in at 1:00, and in the next minutes something happens to the plane. Well whoever is monitoring it won't know anything is wrong until 1:15, which was the next scheduled time for the pilots to check-in.

It is actually pretty scary when one actually thinks about it.

JMO.

The weird thing is that I don't find it scary - I always assumed that was how it worked. Tracking every plane every minute without the voluntarily cooperation of pilots and other countries would be nearly impossible, interfere with military operations, and be of little benefit to anyone. We don't want everyone in the world to know where our planes are all the time, and our tracking capabilities allow us to fend off an attack. Imagine how many small planes and non-commercial flights fly every day - it would be a total disaster to monitor the whole planet and figure out who everyone was. Not to mention a huge expense and other countries wouldn't comply. I just kind of assumed the ocean is the wild west - you don't have signals out there, and it's not anyone's territory. If you get into trouble, no one is going to be able to come to your aid. It makes sense to stay near land, and rely on pilot information in case the instruments have issues, and vice versa. Well-trained pilots can do a lot more in emergency situations than machines - the less technology they trained with, the better. The one weak spot is a crazy pilot who drives his plane into the ocean, but I don't think it justifies the expense of implementing ocean monitoring systems - it wouldn't save any lives and it's unlikely to happen again any time soon.

And if you say "we should put radar out there" the question becomes "who is we?" A country has to make the decision to invest and monitor.

I guess I just feel that air travel has appropriate safeguards in place as far as the U.S. is concerned, and we can't force it on others. People seem to think air travel is a huge threat, but there are a lot of other things we spend our time monitoring. We have control over planes that enter and leave the U.S. - that threat is pretty under control. Other countries are not so lucky, but usually in that case air safety is the least of their problems.

Lawstudent,
That's good stuff. I have not qualified myself to speak to the veracity of your information, but it works for me. I wonder if China gets billed for "roaming" charges?
Fancy cars today use a key that is actually a transponder. Everytime that key is inserted into the ignition it sends an identifying code. Moreover, the code is a "rolling code" and the transponder in the key and the receiver in the ignition change that code every single time that key/transponder is used. I believe there may even be garage door openers that do the same thing. This resetting of the ID code happens seemlessly and automatically. But a pilot has to reset a transponder code manually?
Fancy cars today also have GPS. For the most part this is used simply for an onboard display that can show you your location on a map screen. For a fee, there is an additional service (such as OnStar) that adds them knowing where you are. That service includes such features as the car sending an automated distress to the service if the vehicle is in an accident that involves airbag deployment. Or, the operator of the vehicle can choose to initiate communication with the service by simply hitting an SOS button in the ceiling. And yes, that service can in fact communicate with your car and unlock the doors.

Lol I was going to make a roaming charges joke but thought better of it - I guess they probably just pay for both.

The reason a pilot does it manually is because of security. ATC will give them a code to say - we don't want it to be randomly automated because if is, it's easier to fake. He doesn't reset it - he enters it so that the plane 'repeats' it back to prove he heard. ATC probably has a random generator to get the codes to give him - but they don't want those codes to be available to whoever is watching out for planes, because that makes them worthless - they have to be secret so that only the pilot will know when they tell him. I'm not sure if they only end up doing it manually if there is a problem and the military can't verify the plane is squawking correctly and not trying to hide itself.

And planes could definitely have an OnStar type system, but I think the point is we don't want them to. We don't want an outsider being able to drive the plane - that's too risky with current technology that can be hacked. Maybe it happens in the military. And ACARs is essentially the same thing, minus the outside control - but it can be turned off or fail for whatever reason, just like I'm sure OnStar can be disabled or fail. Any GPS system has imperfect coverage. The point about crash awareness is interesting. I'm sure we could do that with planes, but it's not as necessary because unlike with a car accident, there are unlikely to be survivors to get to quickly, unless it crashes in a populated area, in which case no one needs notification. And, if the car was totally destroyed on impact, I wonder if that signal would ever go off. Air crashes are so devastating that an airbag-like trigger probably wouldn't be too helpful. And we usually figure out that a plane crashed very quickly anyways.

I guess one point that bears mentioning is that many things that people think were designed foolishly were intentionally designed that way for a competing reason. Military security is a big reason certain technologies people think would be helpful are not implemented - they want secrecy, or at least for any tracking that went on to remain classified.

 

[aa9511]

I do not understand, at all, how they can say that they "factually" know that the plane flew on a planned, under radar path that took them around the tip of Indonesia and then south. How do they know that much of the route and not the rest?? It doesn't make sense to me that they can know that it did all of that "off the grid" and then not know where it went...exactly. I didn't realize there was "off the grid" and then "further off the grid" or "no grid".

Please someone clarify!!!lease:

I think b/c the points after the left turn they found out about when they went *back to look on their military radar.

*we don't really know how long after the plane went missing before they actually checked their military radar. They didn't release the information until days afterward, but who knows when they actually knew the information.

Then, the curve around Indonesia is just being shown over and over again on CNN. CNN IIRC was the first organization to "confirm" that it went around Indonesia after an "exclusive source" told them. Going around Indonesia in order to avoid Indonesia's radar.

As far as I know, Malaysian officlas have never outright confirmed or denied that it went around Indonesia.

As you can see, Malaysia itself is saying very little in public.

 

[lawstudent]

I do not understand, at all, how they can say that they "factually" know that the plane flew on a planned, under radar path that took them around the tip of Indonesia and then south. How do they know that much of the route and not the rest?? It doesn't make sense to me that they can know that it did all of that "off the grid" and then not know where it went...exactly. I didn't realize there was "off the grid" and then "further off the grid" or "no grid".

Please someone clarify!!!lease:

As another poster said, it's speculation, and a lot of it seems pretty unconfirmed. But some of it is speculation based on credible data, and probably rises above mere speculation. As I tried to explain my super long post, there are multiple tracking systems for different purposes. The pilot could fly below radar, but it couldn't stop the plane from sending a signal to the satellite in the sky - he could disable the more detailed real-time information, but not the "pings". So they have those pings and know it was in a certain area, and then you have Indonesian radar showing it somewhere, so they have a direction, but the connection to ATC was disabled, so ATC did not know where it was. ATC doesn't have radar in Indonesia or access to all the satellite data that belongs to the GPS company. So those entities had to bring forward information and it had to all be plotted out into a route.

Then, it flew beyond anyone's radar into the ocean, so all that was left was the pings. Then it presumably crashed because the pings stopped. But because a lot of the GPS tracking had been shut off, they only know the distance from the satellite, not the exact point where it would be. So it ends up being a huge area in an ocean like that.

 

[ElleElle]

Ok, so now it's Captain Shah's voice on the final words?

And MH370 dropped to 5000 feet? I say deliberate action. I wonder if the Captain was just following what the "hijackers" told him to do, if it was hijacked.

 

[ElleElle]

Its definitely still a possibility IMO.

One thing I have considered is maybe the reason the transponder and everything else quit working is because it was shot down right at that moment. Maybe it never made the left turn because it got shot down right there.

Its just a theory of course but if they did want to take out the pilot and maybe someone wanted to take out those 20 technical experts maybe they targeted the plane and then since they knew exactly where it fell they sent a cleanup crew ship out to that exact spot the very next day. They could have cleaned up all the surface debris and nobody would be the wiser. The real searches did not start for a couple days after it went missing so they had some time if they did indeed shoot it down somewhere. Either on purpose or by accident.

Its not my top possibility but am not ruling anything out at this point.

The Malaysia officials have me thinking they are hiding something. I have no idea what but they sure come across as not being open and honest especially during early days.

The way they wanted to declare all dead and send everyone over to Austrailia was blatantly obvious. Like go home everyone. Nothing more to see or do here.

BBM ~ The only thing that doesn't add up about it being shot down is the pings.

Can the Immasat pings come from anywhere in that corridor?

 

[ElleElle]

It actually makes me feel better about it if it is speculation and guesses. It angers me that they are speaking of it as "factual". I don't believe the majority of what MSM puts out!! I don't know why I chose to believe that! :maddening:

As far as i'm concerned, the only fact is MH370 left KL at 12:40am on March 8th, 2014.

 

[steelman]

Where did this Richard Quest guy come from on CNN ?? Was he a former sports announcer or a game show host ? Both careers seem to fit.

 

[Momoffourboys]

Ok, so now it's Captain Shah's voice on the final words?

And MH370 dropped to 5000 feet? I say deliberate action. I wonder if the Captain was just following what the "hijackers" told him to do, if it was hijacked.

That is what my husband thinks.
But...why hijack and crash (assuming it crashed)?
And if it was terrorism then why has no one taken responsibility?

Not one theory makes complete sense. :tantrum:

 

[ElleElle]

That is what my husband thinks.
But...why hijack and crash (assuming it crashed)?
And if it was terrorism then why has no one taken responsibility?

Not one theory makes complete sense. :tantrum:

BBM ~ Because they are the works to complete their master plan? :dunno:

 

[aa9511]

The weird thing is that I don't find it scary - I always assumed that was how it worked. Tracking every plane every minute without the voluntarily cooperation of pilots and other countries would be nearly impossible, interfere with military operations, and be of little benefit to anyone. We don't want everyone in the world to know where our planes are all the time, and our tracking capabilities allow us to fend off an attack. Imagine how many small planes and non-commercial flights fly every day - it would be a total disaster to monitor the whole planet and figure out who everyone was. Not to mention a huge expense and other countries wouldn't comply. I just kind of assumed the ocean is the wild west - you don't have signals out there, and it's not anyone's territory. If you get into trouble, no one is going to be able to come to your aid. It makes sense to stay near land, and rely on pilot information in case the instruments have issues, and vice versa. Well-trained pilots can do a lot more in emergency situations than machines - the less technology they trained with, the better. The one weak spot is a crazy pilot who drives his plane into the ocean, but I don't think it justifies the expense of implementing ocean monitoring systems - it wouldn't save any lives and it's unlikely to happen again any time soon.

And if you say "we should put radar out there" the question becomes "who is we?" A country has to make the decision to invest and monitor.

I guess I just feel that air travel has appropriate safeguards in place as far as the U.S. is concerned, and we can't force it on others. People seem to think air travel is a huge threat, but there are a lot of other things we spend our time monitoring. We have control over planes that enter and leave the U.S. - that threat is pretty under control. Other countries are not so lucky, but usually in that case air safety is the least of their problems.



Lol I was going to make a roaming charges joke but thought better of it - I guess they probably just pay for both.

The reason a pilot does it manually is because of security. ATC will give them a code to say - we don't want it to be randomly automated because if is, it's easier to fake. He doesn't reset it - he enters it so that the plane 'repeats' it back to prove he heard. ATC probably has a random generator to get the codes to give him - but they don't want those codes to be available to whoever is watching out for planes, because that makes them worthless - they have to be secret so that only the pilot will know when they tell him. I'm not sure if they only end up doing it manually if there is a problem and the military can't verify the plane is squawking correctly and not trying to hide itself.

And planes could definitely have an OnStar type system, but I think the point is we don't want them to. We don't want an outsider being able to drive the plane - that's too risky with current technology that can be hacked. Maybe it happens in the military. And ACARs is essentially the same thing, minus the outside control - but it can be turned off or fail for whatever reason, just like I'm sure OnStar can be disabled or fail. Any GPS system has imperfect coverage. The point about crash awareness is interesting. I'm sure we could do that with planes, but it's not as necessary because unlike with a car accident, there are unlikely to be survivors to get to quickly, unless it crashes in a populated area, in which case no one needs notification. And, if the car was totally destroyed on impact, I wonder if that signal would ever go off. Air crashes are so devastating that an airbag-like trigger probably wouldn't be too helpful. And we usually figure out that a plane crashed very quickly anyways.

I guess one point that bears mentioning is that many things that people think were designed foolishly were intentionally designed that way for a competing reason. Military security is a big reason certain technologies people think would be helpful are not implemented - they want secrecy, or at least for any tracking that went on to remain classified.

I guess I just never really thought about it before all of this, YKWIM? I did assume that "someone" was tracking and keeping an eye on the plane I'm on. I just didn't think about how often or precisely how it all works. If I was on a flight, I just thought the pilots and the ground control are working together to handle everything - I never thought about how it worked going over the ocean.

But like you say, this is a unique event and generally everything seems to work just fine for thousands of flights every day.

 

[steelman]

I can't wait until they find out that one of these ships had a "pinger" on board to use as a training tool, and that's what everybody has been picking up for the last 5 days. SURELY, something like that couldn't happen..............??