I had fairly well concluded that the most likely cause was a fire disrupting the electrical and control systems, when CNN now say the sharp left turn was pre-programmed 12 minutes before sign off from Malaysian Air Traffic control, which was followed fairly quickly by that left turn.
CNN claim to have this from an US official, from data sent back before the reporting systems went off. It is hard to know what to make of it: obviously there are large economic interests that much prefer blame to lie with the pilots rather than the aircraft. But if it is true then the move was not a response to an emergency. (CNN went on to say the pilot could have programmed in the course change as a contingency in case of an emergency. That made no sense to me at all – does it to anyone else?)
I still find it extremely unlikely that the plane landed or crashed on land I cannot believe it could evade military detection as it flew over a highly militarized region. Somewhere there is debris on the ocean. There have been previous pilot suicides that took the plane with them; but the long detour first seems very strange and I do not believe is precedented. However if the CNN information on pre-programming is correct, and given it was the co-pilot who signed off to air traffic control, it is hard to look beyond the pilots as those responsible for whatever did happen. In fact, on consideration, the most improbable thing is that information CNN are reporting from the US official.
TimV – A ping is also known as an ACK signal (Acknowledge) and will consist of a number of bytes in its message, usually 256 although sometimes less, perhaps 128.
A partial ping would therefore be an ACK that was not fully received, say 10 bytes or 20 or whatever but less than the full number of bytes expected.
It is at the moment of interruption of the signal that the plane supposedly crashed.
What most amazes me is that Malaysian Airlines had not paid for the extra service so why were there any pings at all? There shouldn’t have been any. not a one.
Kenneth – 9M-MR1 was spotted in Instanbul 9th of January 2013, how long did you say the plane had been in storage in Tel Aviv?
You can contact the photographer, Kivanc Ucan, by sending an email via this link
http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/contact.php?id=360141
Here is a picture of 9M-MR1 blowing an engine during take off from Kuala Lumpur in 2006 (I believe) Perhaps by tracking the replacement engine you can find some more about the plane. Hope this helps you
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/4/2/1134244.jpg
At least little Holland can still get intercepting jets into the air when it wants in contrast to MH370 or 9/11. “Small is beautiful” I suppose.
I see from WIKI that LAN cargo operates mainly in N and S America. Miami, yes MIAMI is its base, inaugurated in 2001. (2001 of all years!) the Lima/Miami route was initiated in 1999. It gets its first 777’s in 2009. Santiago is the other.It has 3 B777’s apparently and regularly uses Amsterdam and Frankfurt as European connections. The third biggest share holder appears to be JP Morgan/Chase. It is also the parent company of LANCO that is based in Bogota which has just 1 B777.
It’s hard to see how a regular user would not be apprised by air traffic control to stay clear of Amsterdam without the need to engage military aircraft. That bit is very puzzling.
Sorry that was in response to Bluebird
26 Mar, 2014 – 9:28 am as always on the ball. How DO you do it?
Bluebird; Found any links to Seychelles in your journeys?
Kenneth Sorensen
26 Mar, 2014 – 1:38 pm I hope you could detect a little self parody there. It wasn’t meant to be taken quite literally except that an attack on the western leaders WOULD be a big event without doubt. Also, although the flight was obviously benign, a risk was obviously calculated to be there by Dutch air-force or they wouldn’t have launched and intercepted. Its hardly a “normal” event and I still can’t understand why usual air traffic control advice that must have been given wasn’t followed. That is nowhere explained as far as I can see.
Donald
26 Mar, 2014 – 1:46 pm I get that completely. Thanks. What I don’t get is that if INMARSAT are saying it transmitted once every hour, how can the last partial one be explained only EIGHT MINUTES after the previous full one. Do you have a logical explanation for the 8 min interval rather than the scheduled 60 min one? This seems very strange to me though no doubt there is a reason for it somewhere in the specification. And can you answer my earlier point about the two hours or so BEFORE the southerly route was allegedly adopted. Why is INMARSAT totally silent on the predictive location pings (at least two) for that part of the journey. Your obvious expertise in this area is appreciated btw.
Christopher Bollyn has added a sentence to his response to Bluebird within the last hour [emphasised in bold]:
Katie
26 Mar, 2014 – 12:18 pm seems you picked up my “ping”.
Katie
26 Mar, 2014 – 12:09 pm Spooky! Must have been good stuff.
TimV – Seven pings in total .. First normal ping happened as expected, second ping somewhere between Malaysian and Indonesia then the plane turned and apparently every other ping happened en route at an altitude of 30,000 feet. Very timely turns. 🙁
But how did a pilotless plane maintain a perfect altitude for the last five hours of flight?
You have to understand that in order for Inmersat to correctly assume a “Doppler” effect to the plane’s signals then it must have maintained its altitude and heading, it obviously did not zig zag all over the place but moved in a straight line … no east or west deviations, … otherwise the maths would be all over the place.
Also I am amazed that a plane without a pilot followed the curvature of the earth so perfectly that the satellite could estimate its precise altitude .. Awesome Gyroscopic properties . 🙂
If the plane skidded over the surface of the water as it crashed then it is possible that water entered the sending unit and caused a partial signal to be sent out before water finally fried the instrument. think rain water momentarily switching on the send button in your cell phone, there is no other logical explanation otherwise. In fact it is the only possible explanation .. but it is a good one.
Kenneth – I found your plane at Ben Gurion and took a screen shot of its location at the airport, give me a few minutes to post it for you, not sure which of my websites I should use yet.
Now you can keep your eye on it 🙂
Kenneth – Here is your plane, you can use Google earth to zoom in on it, I hope it is the one, it certainly looks like it to me, if it isn’t I apologize, my eyesight is not too good.
http://zircus.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/777-ben-gurion.jpg
I cannot think of all this cause my brain i slike a Commodore64. I direct you to Bluebird, those brain is like IBM’s deepblue.
TimV – Here is a better explanation of the last unfinished ping which also offers an explanation of the crash
The pinging unit spends all its time collecting information from the engines … it is activated once an hour by a timer and automatically sends the information to a satellite.
When the plane sent the last ping it immediately collected all the information for the next signal.
Immediately after the seventh ping was sent the plane crashed on the ocean but it must have first skidded across the water for a few seconds breaking up as it did and allowing water to enter the plane, perhaps a drop of water hit the timer and momentarily activated the timer and therefore the sending unit began to send a signal … a millisecond or so later more water fried the electronics; thus we have only a partial last ping
This means that the plane entered the water in a flat position, a nose dive would not have allowed enough time for the timer to activate the sending unit.
The partial ping tells me that the plane did not run out of fuel, it came in at a flat angle, it was not a nose dive as if it had run out of fuel and fell out of the sky.
A bit more … also .. there is a crystal in the electronics which controls the frequency of the signal, If the plane had fallen flat from a high altitude the shock of the collision with the water would have altered the frequency of the signal and the partial ping would not have been received by the satellite.
The only way for the partial signal to have been sent at the proper frequency for the satellite to receive it is if the plane entered the water at a shallow angle.
The crash had to be one similar to the one in this video off the Comoran islands, you can see here how water would have entered the fuselage slowly, the crash took a few seconds at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKC9C0HCNH8
Highly relevant to this thread:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Uo7D8b5VgnM/UU756FnR60I/AAAAAAAAEcs/1FnzP6D1VxE/s1600/VDOIN0.D.png
Katie
26 Mar, 2014 – 11:50 am You say: “No one mentioned an aircraft carrier [ except me asking why not ] in the region, if this is true then why is it not used in the reconnaissance ?”
Well I did back along in relation to American 7th Fleet that contains no less than three carriers if I remember correctly. They must have at least one in the Indian Ocean. Each of course has the most sophisticated radar available and aircraft to extend it even further. This is just one navy. How about all the others?
Then if you check out http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/28/world_flight_path_map_busiest_airports_are_atlanta_frankfurt_sao_paolo_beijing.html you will see the suggested southern route is virtually unused. This means that any reported missing plane flying along it for six hours or so would stick out like a sore thumb as they say. It is simply unbelievable that it could go all that way on that route un-noticed and unrecorded.
I can’t believe what I am reading !
1. By switching off your transponder, you also disable TCAS (collision avoidance).
You can therefore “sit” behind another a/c. His system will not respond.
2. A “ping” is generated from the SATCOM packs at the rear of the a/c.
Monitor the “pings” until you don’t get one…and X marks the spot.
3. The “doppler effect” was developed many years ago. Its effectiveness was proven during World War Two. Ever wondered why the RAF won the “battle of Britain”.
4. First Class satellite links work via SATCOM (AFAIK). Disable that. End of.
5. You can’t “hijack” an a/c by taking over the FMC’s. You just turn off the A/P and “fly the plane” (It what we were all taught to do years ago). “Fly by Wire” refers to the “inputs” on the control surfaces. If you don’t believe me, shut down an a/c in flight, let the RAM deploy….and you can still fly ! (a bit “radical” but it shows that a plane actually can fly without FMC’s !)
6. The a/c was not “pilot-less”. It navigated. The “turn West” would not be in the Flight Plan. It would therefore “not be pre programmed”. Nor would the waypoint IGREX (North of Indonesia).
7. Primary radar and commercial Secondary radar are different. Just because you lose a transponder, does not mean you “send fighters up”. It could be a “decompression” and it was “seen” to descend. That is procedure, it would not “alert” anyone. a) Primary would not know Secondary was not working b) Primary would have an “interceptor” solution plot, it is pointless having a Primary Radar system if you did not have “something” it could then “do” once you have a identified a threat.
8. I can discuss Transponders and their modes (including mode 5 IFF) later …and how it works. In this case, it is not relevant.
Katie
26 Mar, 2014 – 11:11 am I discussed this incident above with James in connection with lockerbie which was done in revenge (it is alleged!)
Idiot !
Lockerbie was a terrorist attack.
It was NOT however a “terrorist from Libya”.
Tim on the other hand believes it was SHOT DOWN by the USA.
I say to Tim…. what days does the nurse come round ?
Clearly Tim is mad
Or was Locerbie “done” by UFO’s (Carnk City, here we come).
Tim V
26 Mar, 2014 – 5:13 pm
It’s no good having aircraft carriers in the region if they are not using the planes. The OZ planes were spending 4 hours flying out to the search area where aircraft could be ferried there to search.
I’m afraid James is right about Lockerbie, Libya got the blame but it was an Iranian hit.
“Libya got the blame but it was an Iranian hit.”
Katie; The Iranian defector submitting his intel could be another LeWinter/Curveball opportunist.
As we know, Iran is responsible for everything from Climate change to the chicago fire.
Neocons afoot…
@Katie 9:34 am: It’s kind of like how none, absolutely none, of the satellites operating in the world at the time of the 3/11/11 earthquake in Japan, managed to capture an image of the EQ in progress. Considering the number of artificial satellites above our earth, this is almost more remarkable than the EQ itself. Now we are asked to believe that Inmarsat is the sole source of any and all knowledge surrounding the MH370 disappearance, and that is also incredible.
Question: SSTL collaborated with two Chinese universities to develop parasitic satellites that can jam their hosts, among other things, and small enough to elude detection, so why did we hear nothing more? Surely some satellites somewhere in the world were compromised. Why do we trust satellite information as infallible, and why do we not ask questions when major earth events like 3/11/11 occur and not a single satellite manages to see anything? See no evil, hear no evil?
Katie
It wasn’t Iran (although it could indeed be linked back that way).
The actual “hands” that did it… are known.
The “backers”…. you’re most likely correct in what you have written.
If you can, look back at the “modus” of “altitude explosives” used in that period.
The worrying issue was “where it was loaded”. That appears to be Heathrow.
There is more to this story (too long to go into) but it is very interesting.
As for “conspiracy theories”, I am amazed that “other topics” get pushed forward, but with Lockerbie, nothing is said.
@Donald: Over in the al-Hilli thread, I posted a link to a story from a few years ago. U.S. military jets intercepted a KAL Boeing 777 on Canada’s west coast. From what was said by the media, that situation came very close to being terminal. At the time, the media reported that the pilot did not respond to contact.
http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=2091c1a0-5e42-4272-a72a-99d8c8d09c2a
Wiki;
“Matthew Gannon, the CIA’s deputy station chief in Beirut, Lebanon, was sitting in Clipper Class, Pan Am’s version of business class,[26] seat 14J. Major Chuck “Tiny” McKee, an army officer on secondment to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in Beirut, sat behind Gannon in the center aisle, in seat 15F. Two Diplomatic Security Service special agents, acting as bodyguards to Gannon and McKee, were sitting in economy: Ronald Lariviere, a security officer from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, was in 20H; Daniel O’Connor, a security officer from the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia, Cyprus, sat five rows behind Lariviere in 25H, both men seated over the right wing. The four men had flown together out of Cyprus that morning.”
Even with evidence, on the ground, ( $500k in heroin) with Gannon and crew heading to the US, with evidence of CIA trafficking in drugs, leads us to the Iranian Canard. Do you think any interests would kill hundreds, just to murder and shut up a few?
I repeat; the Freescale 20.
Funny
Ben and Tim believe Lockerbie was a USA missile !
Both guys have little or no knowledge of the investigation (I should say “investigation”), the trial or the subsequently presented evidence.
Yeah… America did it guys. What’s next, UFO’s promoting wind farms !!!!
One word “Cranks”.