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.
Christmas island………. Residents are mainly Chinese .
They also have a problem with immigrants…could the sighted wreckage be one of their boats ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island
Location. Flight path.
1. The map I suspect is based on the “final” ping.
2. Previous “pings” would indicate a direction of travel.
3. The “pings” appear to be generated by SATCOM transceivers “failing” to On/Run.
If that is the case, why produce the “upper” ?
@Tim V 20 Mar, 2014 – 11:17 pm
“Standard protocol especially since 9/11… to scramble fighters if commercial planes fail to respond.”
In spite of that there are several recent incidents in the US of commercial airliners landing at the totally wrong airport, sometimes with too-short runways. In one of case they took off again, and the flight crew wouldn’t have reported the error, except the flight attendants narked. None were detected by ATC.
There’s also turmoil in the ICBM missile command, with officers disciplined and breaches of protocol, such as leaving blast doors open.
An airline pilot forum claimed security in South East Asia is lax. We’ve learned of the babes-in-the-cockpit, but the same applies to ATC especially in light-traffic areas at night. India admitted some island radars are switched off at night. Even if radars are active how attentive are operators? Reputedly in Malaysia many jobs are political patronage; impossible to fire or discipline.
Second thing. How much information, mis-information and dis-information can we endure. In the Chevaline affair, it was mostly the press and the police. In MH370 there are layers upon layers of intervening experts on highly technical subjects.
Inmarsat finally clarified one point. Each aircraft has a unique ID when it pings. Why couldn’t any of the experts explain that? It’s no secret, though I couldn’t find the details on the web.
An expert said he’d talked to the flight crew of one plane and they were all unaware that turning off ACARS did not turn off the satellite receiver/transmitter that does the pinging, which must be disabled from the equipment room under the cockpit, so that isn’t common knowledge.
Still divergent opinions about how the Emergency Locater Transmitters work — some experts say there are two on the 777 and they deploy automatically upon a crash at sea. Which conflicts with what I said yesterday. Think most of this is from media reporters and some experts confusing the squawk transponders, with ACARS data unit, with Inmarsat satellite box, with ELTs and possibly the FDR/CVR boxes and their pingers.
Fox interviewed a senator from one of the intelligence committees. He appeared on the show to reassure people the FBI was working 24/7 to recover deleted files. Then the interviewer asked a strange technical question about the electrical system on the 777. The senator, if he even understood correctly, says Boeing told committee that it does X.
Interviewer later asks resident experts about this and the all say it’s not true. Interviewer goes, “But the senator said…”
Next an ex expert from the intelligence community says from what insiders have told him, combined with his own intuition, indicates plane was flown to Pakistan, though it’s not likely there any more.
Best comment from Yahoo Answers regarding the latest satellite pics, “I could have taken a better resolution picture with my cell phone!”
NR, see james’ comment at 7:57pm about the location of the SATCOM transmitter – he says it’s in the rear ceiling. If he is right, and I assume he has looked into this, that would explain why pilots don’t even realize it’s there.
Also, james – thanks for that link to the map from 7:20am. It’s interesting – kind of answers (or tries to ) your question (and many others’) about the other pings. two of those earlier time arcs could lead straight to the Maldives or to Diego Garcia. yet we are asked to only consider the last transmission point.
Another question – fuel for the flight was reportedly (per malaysan transportation Min.) just enough to get to beijing plus maximum another hour (he said 1/2 hour) for potential diversion to another airport if there’s emergency. yet, we now know the flight kept going on for nearly 7.5 hours! and that means it took on more fuel than normal, especially given the greater burn rate at lower altitudes, which we hear he took. that not even taking into account the various maneuvers we are hearing about (for example, the one seemingly taken to avoid indonesian radar)! How do we square the potential distance traveled with the fuel supposedly taken in and the likely burn rate? the plane either had more fuel than normal or it didn’t. And if it did, surely that means there was some irregularity at the airport? and surely somewhere there are records indicating that? So how come no one says anything about this rather obvious point?
“An airline pilot forum claimed security in South East Asia is lax”
Ever been to Europe !!! Ever been to the U.S. !!
Airline (and airport) “security” is lax full stop.
Recently “deadheading” homeward on an airline, I noted an F/A passing a drink to the flight deck….with her back to me, she was having a chat with the pilots through the half open door.
So where was the “guard” F/A stood facing the cabin ?
A minor infringement you may say…. !
How about the baggage handling at some airports.
Roughly how many bags “go missing” per year !
They don’t “go missing” they get loaded onto “unknown” aircraft.
So the “reconciliation” has failed then. What 3/5 per 1000 is acceptable.
And people wonder why private jets do a brisk business !
P.S. Don’t get me onto “pilot suicide”. Some of the “fruit loops” I have met whilst trotting the globe is unbelievable.
Stressed out, divorced, big mortgages, missing their “once a weekend” visit to see their kids due to working Saturday again, paying for the “divorce”….and working for a “big airline” is no fun at all.
Especially if they’re facing possible “redundancy” and disliking the prospect of working for a “tin pot” three-sectors-a-day “hopper”.
I would say 7,5 hours is just in the range possible, because we initially heard it had fuel for the 5 hour 40 minutes flight to Bejing plus 2 hours spare capacity. But you are right if it has flown low it would have burnt more. But why fly low over the ocean? Over the ocean they could well have flown in normal height.
Marlin
Good point. Generally (on one of those) it’ll be a company SOP that dictates what he carries with regard fuel and reserves, of course depends on alternatives, an extended hold, divert options and possible further hold (no one wants to declare an emergency at your divert !).
All of that will be written up, so it will be a “known”. Again “unreleased” !
But that will just be “protocol” prior to the investigation that will follow.
Marlin
The SATCOM radio packs are in the rear.
Meaning the breakers can be pulled (for example)on the flight deck, but the SATCOM doesn’t “turn off”. It “defaults”, for want of a better word, to “run”.
As in, it’s not “on/off”. It’s “on/run”.
That’s why (I suspect) the “pings” were picked up (six I think has been mentioned in the press conference of today).
Found this by accident re ACARS. Clearest explanation I’ve seen. A bit technical but readable. See comments at bottom. Even some of them are confused.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/16/satcom-acars-explained/
The actual takeoff fuel load might be available in the first ACARS transmission. IF that’s included in the service to which the airline subscribed and IF there was an ACARS transmission before shutdown of ACARS. Above source claims there’s one per hour, determined by the far end (Inmarsat) and not the aircraft. Or if ACARS sent data via VHF radio while in range of land.
NR
Think of ACARS like a “text” message.
You might text and it can do it automatically.
Over land it’s sent by VHF. Over sea it’s sent by satellite.
In “auto” it depends what package you have as to how many times it sends.
Now imagine you don’t have a lot of cash and go for a poor package.
The “texts” get saved up….and it’s sent in a “burst”.
Now imagine you have a lot of cash and go for the better package
You texts will be more frequent.
And depending where you are….determines which way you send it !
Now if you turn your phone off…. it really isn’t off.
It still “responds” to the the masts and “pings”.
That’s a simplest way to think of it.
That’s the easiest way to think of ACARS.
“The question is why the hijacker(s) did not prevent the plane from responding to pings: most probably, being a networking detail, not even pilots know that their system/antenna respond “I am here” even if the SATCOM is not being used by any onboard systems”
And that I answered in an above post.
The packs aren’t “off”.
Just a thought about “six pings”.
The first at 02.11. The last at 07.11. And no 7th (at 08.11).
If so, that gives the current search area (ish).
But that would/should indicate direction also ?
If it realy is MD370 it could be the Israelis having got cold feet. Today people are so informed thanks to the uncontrollable internet, taht they cannot pull off another 9/11. so they decided to abort mission and crashing the craft into the sea. The passengers will never tell whether they briefly had a stopover at some Island. The black boxes will have been removed at the stop-over.
_____________________________________________________________
Flash back
This crucial story has never appeared in the big NYC papers, or anywhere else. Christopher Bollyn included it in his famous Solving 9-11 book. It tells the eery story of how a digital exercise which included a mock plane-into-building” crash on the morning of September 11. and confused officials, as to whether the hi-jacking of aircrafts was part of the exercise.
The cash site is carefully calculated to be 7,5 hours flying time from Kuala Lumpur. all the debris is the real thing, but the black boxes will never be found, cause they are destroyed on the stop-over the palne had at an Island location. It was becoming quite some logistical nightmare to provide food and other necessities to all the passengers, and since they could not sit there in perpetuality, and the mission was aborted, and they wanted no witnesses, the passengers was let on board again for their final journey, – also to let it look right, when the corpses are found next to the vreckage.
Betpaqdala Desert, Kazakhstan !
They couldn’t tell direction.
Therefore if (“IF”) it did not register a “ping” at 08.11 and it’s not in the sea, then it could only be in the Betpaqdala Desert area.
Seems unlikely.
The deathly precision of the attacks and the magnitude of planning would have required years of planning. Such a sophisticated operation would require the fixed frame of a state intelligence organisation, something not found in a loose group, like the one led by the student Mohammed Atta in Hamburg.
-Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany’s Verfassungsschutz intelligence service, to Christopher Bollyn, December 2001.
___________
Edit: Kenneth Sorensen changed the word “organization” to its proper spelling, like it is used in the civilised world, and even in Germany.
I believe this German (who like most Germans knows a thing or two about organisations and how to organise) and former head of his countrys intelligence service
James; Are you skeptical wrt to ‘remote’ hacking-command and control of MH 370?
One shall never say never,- and the Israelis have a proven record of being first with the latest. I think even Sherlock Holmes would tell you that this is really smart, if you want nobody to discover what you have just done.
They employed this technique with the poisoninhg of Arafat with Polonium in the autumn of 2004, but was furious when the Russians copyied the technicque with the poisoning of the Jewish Litvinenko in London in 2006,- beacause suddenly the whole world got to know about it. This story has wider ramifications, brought home in these very days, because ultimately the crisis that Russia experiences today, setms from anatgonistic Jews with great influence on Capitol Hill, and even in The White House itself.
Ever since Putin clamped down on the Oligarchs (more than 3/4 of which are Jewish) — which was what he was elected in 2000 to do, the Jews had tried to undermine him.
“Standard protocol especially since 9/11 ((it was altered briefly in the US immediately before) to scramble fighters if commercial planes fail to respond”
No, it was always standard procedure. What was changed a few months before 911 was whether pilots had the authority to shoot down planes that were heading for populated areas. They used to, but it was changed such that only the Defense Secretary could authorise such action.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/21/the-secret-far-deep-hunt-for-mh370.html
Lithium batteries on board….
http://www.geek.com/mobile/why-batteries-explode-1538916/
“Any Li-ion battery has the potential to go up in flames, and that’s a product of its chemistry. Lithium is used in batteries as an anode because it has extremely high electrochemical potential. That is, lithium-ion moving to the electrode produces a lot of energy. Lithium’s low atomic weight is also useful in reducing the mass of batteries.”
SAA 295 (referenced by James, i think) had gear in the rear, Passengers had moved into first class to avoid smoke and fire, but will we ever know?
I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking ‘misdirection’.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/20-2
“Then came an unexpected turn of events calling that story deeply into question. On March 7 Americans began to drown in a deluge of headlines pointing them thousands of miles from Ukraine, to Malaysia, where Flight 370 had inexplicably vanished.
Ever since, the mystery of 370 has at least rivaled, and more often eclipsed, Ukraine in U.S. news headlines — even in our most respected elite news sources. Ten days after it disappeared, Flight 370 still held five of the top six spots on the New York Times website’s “most viewed” list, while Ukraine limped in at numbers 8 and 9. Over at the Washington Post site, the missing flight took two of the top four spots on “Post Most” (and an impending snowstorm held the other two). No sign of Ukraine at all.”
http://www.kinitv.com/video/5060O8
Published on 21 March 2014 23:3
The spotlight has once again fallen on the cargo of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 after authorities today confirmed the aircraft was carrying lithium-ion batteries which can be highly flammable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/airbus-battery-idUSL5N0BF1S720130215
“PARIS, Feb 15 (Reuters) – Airbus has dropped lithium-ion batteries of the type that forced the grounding of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and will use traditional nickel-cadmium batteries in its crucially important next passenger jet, the A350.
The European planemaker said on Friday it had taken the decision to adopt the batteries used on existing models in order to prevent delays in the A350’s entry to service next year, amid uncertainty over the potential fallout of Boeing’s problems.
The move came a week after Reuters reported that Airbus was considering such a move to limit the risks surrounding the development of its own $15 billion airliner.
“We want to mature the lithium-ion technology but we are making this decision today to protect the A350’s entry-into-service schedule,” an Airbus spokeswoman said.”
Ben
I am a “tad wary” that it was taken over “by remote control”, yes.
However I think people are missing an important point about what may have happened.
As for SAA 295. It was a 747 operated by South African Airways.
The “config” of their “Jumbo Jets” at the time were half pax, half cargo.
Yes pax were at the front….as they couldn’t be seated in the cargo area (aft).
The “S.A. Govt” were of course “known” for carrying “allsorts” of stuff.
They were “beating” the weapons embargo ! And everyone knew it. But did little.
The fire started aft, in the cargo dept.
And the rest (as they say) is history. And that’s what happens when their is a fire onboard.
As for “pilot suicide”. It is possible in this case…as so are many things.
Many things like an attack on KL ? Was that the intention ?
Pink
As far as I know lithium-ion batteries when they “burn” tend to explode.
The MAS a/c flew (appears to have) for a number of hours.
I would like to know what was on the manifest.
And I would like to know what was loaded that wasn’t on the manifest !
Do you mean as in smuggled on or as in hidden James ?
“And I would like to know what was loaded that wasn’t on the manifest !”
Pink
Not sure. One or the other. Or both.
What has happened (in modern times) is unheard of.
Take “pilot suicide”.
Why fly so long ? Makes no sense. (many reasons why not, too numerous to list).
Sure it has happened before (Egypt Air)
And the “attempt” on the DHL (?) cargo plane (for Life Insurance).
Just to name but two
But “this”. It’s totally weird. Something else must be going on.
No idea what.