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.
Or maybe headlines like…. “Malay Air force shoot down plane”
The “timings” are very odd if you put them all together as one.
1.21am Transponder off (Why we don’t know)
2.03am INMARSAT data with no R or T channels (no “burst” timings)
2.22am Malaysian Military radar lose contact with MH370
2.25am INMARSAT note a “log on” by MH370
2.39am MAS call MH370 (first time)
Aircraft is “around” Banda Aceh area.
Sailor of Banda Aceh sights object “glowing orange”.
If you “completely remove the INMARSAT data, you merely have an a/c over flying Malaysia….and then seen “glowing orange” in the North of the straits !
@James: Yes, that’s one way they could “lose contact”.
Finally, a news outlet has picked up on the GeoResonance news release from a couple of days ago:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/557684/20140702/mh370-missing-malaysian-airlines.htm#.U7Q09bEUqSo
Malaysia Airlines will be delisted and sold off in whole or in parts:
http://www.independent.ie/business/world/lossmaking-malaysia-airlines-plans-major-restructuring-following-disappearance-of-mh370-30401501.html
The ongoing questions about what really happened must be driving the price down for any interested buyers.
Already loss making… to… really loss making !
Primary Radar please MAS ?
Great interest developing in he reasons for this “gap”.
Not new, but opportunities for revenue generation by a failing airline is suggested here:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/482791/Cover-up-over-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-could-have-been-prompted-by-cargo
Criminal and civil liability are also suggested. This is pretty blunt.
Question.. Where is the Primary Radar Track ?
We have the INMARSAT data.
That says “something unknown initiated a log on with the INMARSAT satellite and began a journey from near Banda Aceh at 2.25am MYT. Several hours later this unknown object ceased to provided handshake data, the time 08.11am MYT”
We are “told” that Primary Radar (believed to be Malaysian Military) lost contact with MH370 near Banda Aceh at 2.22am MYT.
It is understood that MH370 lost Secondary Radar contact after it had passed waypoint IGARI and had turned RIGHT towards waypoint BIDOT.
It is further understood that there is NO Primary Radar coverage in the area surrounding waypoint IGARI
We are “forced” to believe that MH370 made a turn LEFT towards Malaysia, crossed over Malaysia, entered the Strait of Malacca, turned in a North Westerly direction and headed towards Banda Aceh…..and that at some point after 1.21am Malaysian Primary Radar picked up an object transiting this “exact” route.
We are told that the route of this objected was tracked “in real time”, although no Search and Rescue attempt was made at the “lost contact” location (2.22am) for several days….and no interceptor aircraft was sent aloft to identify this object.
Further there has only been one piece of evidence to support the Malaysian claim, that being ONE slide presented to the families of the Chinese passengers which shows “the primary radar track of MH370” in the Straits of Malacca.
Hopefully the Search and Rescue Teams and Air Crash Investigation Teams have been presented with more evidence than that which has been presented to the public to show that the object believed to be MH370 at IGARI is indeed the same object which “logged on” to the INMARSAT satellite at 2.25am MYT….because “in good faith” I am so far “struggling with the Malaysians version of events”.
N.B. An “8th” INMARSAT ring would potentially be of use. One which indicated the position of MH370 PRIOR to the log on at 2.25am. That would be the data sent at and between 2.03am/2.05am, however (and most oddly) no BFO data can be extrapolated from that “information exchange”.
In short… there is NO evidence presented publicly to say that Flight MAS370 ever crossed over Malaysian territory. In fact quite the reverse. 1. The location of the initial Search and Rescue effort. 2. No Royal Malaysian Airforce protocol being followed.
Therefore there is NO evidence to suggest that the Primary Radar “lost contact” which is CLAIMED to have taken place at 2.22am by the Malaysians, is related in anyway to the INMARSAT “log on” at 2.25am.
SHOULD the Malaysians WISH to do that, I think we’ll find a lot more “information” coming out about this flight !
This (below) article explains why Thailand only released it’s Primary Radar data on the flight of MAS370 more than a week after it “disappeared”.
Believe that ?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/18/mh370_thailand_s_military_finally_shares_radar_data_that_would_have_been.html
This article (below) (U.S. Navy website) explains about some of the joint operations being conducted by the U.S. in the area. For example “CARAT”.
On the 26 February at Dili Port, Timor-Leste (in the Savu sea/ Banda Sea area).
On the 20th of May at Sattahip, Thailand (in the Gulf of Thailand area).
http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/carat-2014.aspx#.U7ggofldVCj
So… on the 7th/8th of March, what ships of The 7th Fleet and Task Force 73 were in that particular area ? That would be interesting to know.
Is it “possible” that “an emergency” happened onboard MAS370.
They turned for Kota Bhuru ? (Or even Hat Yia ?).
They “over shoot” and end in the Straits of Malacca ?
It passes Banda Aceh ….and crashes further on from that position ?
That scenario would fit the eyewitness reports.
One in the Gulf of Thailand. One off Banda Aceh.
But what about the INMARSAT data ?
Could that be some how “spoofed” in real time ?
Oddly INMARSAT were/are the primary communications link for the majority of surface vessels in th U.S. Navy. There’s lots of articles that show this….
file:///C:/Users/desktop/Downloads/ADA469902.pdf
http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2012/NAV12347.txt
I bet the U.S. Navy know a thing or two about “satellites” and “communications”.
It’s hard to believe that anyone can cross over Banda Aceh without a consequence like the scrambling of fighter jets for this U.S. military/non-military plane in May of 2013:
“This is related to our country’s sovereignty. Any aircraft, let alone a military one, passing our airspace has to have clearances,” he said.
“The aircraft is being impounded until its intentions for entering our airspace are clear.”
The aircraft is still parked at the airport pending its clearances.
While the TNI AU claims the aircraft is a US military aircraft, it does not have the US military roundel nor US civilian registration.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/21/us-transport-aircraft-forced-down-aceh.html
What does “certain goods” mean?
“TNI AU personnel checked the aircraft with tail number 13075 to ensure it was not carrying certain goods.”
From: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/21/us-transport-aircraft-forced-down-aceh.html
So the INDONESIAN “Military” radar does work !
The U.S. a/c would have been on Secondary radar no doubt with his transponder pinging away.
I guess they would have gone aloft if there was only a Primary contact only.
Yet they didn’t !
QRS-11…..?
Looking back on the behavior of MH370 after goodnight, and all info that turns out to at least 50% smokescreens, maybe we should look into, if a series of these strange event caused MH370 to go out out of control for the pilots.
There is a known fact that Boeing has retrofitted most of it´s autopilots with software and a chip called QRS-11, that it´s used by the military, there has been several lawsuits, both for exporting this sensitive chip, but also lawsuits from a pilot claiming that this system has been kept secret from pilots and would be dangerous as it could take over the controls.
If we assume that someone highjacked or went into EE-bay approx 40 min after takeoff and started to mess around, then we may have a explanation for all the strange events. If a highjack or technical sabotage occurred 40 min after takeoff, there is a possible chance that the secret QRS-11 system got activated, and as the pilots wasn´t aware of this system, there could be a possible fight between the pilots and the QRS-11 system like in the film 2001 where the computer HAL-2000 goes bananas and start to kill the astronauts.
If the pilots made a divert and the QRS-11 kicked in, there are dark motives that this flight behaved as it did, nore Boeing or the state department would like the world to know that there is a HAL2000 system in their system that could go bananas.
If there is a remote possibility via sat, for QRS-11, and the pilots goes down in EE-bay fighting a strange problem, there could be possible scenario that a overtake of QRS-11 went out of control if the pilots succeeded to disconnect the remote link in EE-bay, maybe there was a preprogrammed route for QRS-11 if contact was lost with ground control.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7664
Additional to the post above, the sister plane to MH370 got a visit from a flight-engineer with this report:
Agent Chips,
I’ve just undone the last screws of LRU (line replaceable unit) on AIMS Cabinet One inside the avionics bay of the Tel Aviv Twin 777-2H6ER, same as MH370. I FLASHED you a week ago as soon as I suspected the AIMS might have an “extra” box. Happy and sad to report there was an extra box – it was labelled “Honeywell International Inc – Flight Control Module”. I tested the paint and it dated back to a time when Honeywell and Boeing first installed the avionics for another B777 delivered on 31st May 2002.
On opening the LRU the microchip was stamped with patent number “WO2002006115A9” 14 July 2000. [ perhaps ALPA can understand the impact of that ]. My Fully Integrated Gspot Googler System (FIGGS), of which I have one (no general confusion with the alternate FIGGs system of which I have two) was aroused by the words “Flight control modules merged into the integrated modular avionics – Honeywell Int Inc”.
Reading the patent detail will reveal the significance of the date July 2000 but you’ve guessed that already. I believe that you contention that if ALPA hadn’t perpetrated a FRAUD UPON THE COURT, Colgan 3407, Air France 447, Sukhoi Superjet, MH370 and the ‘October Surprise’ could have been avoided. Still time for event penciled in for 2 October, 2014.
Remember, IMA = AIMS in the patent text: “In an aircraft using fly-by-wire technology, the flight control functions have been integrated into the integrated modular avionics (‘IMA’) (410). The new flight control module (‘FCM’) (402) resides on the same data bus as the other modules in the IMA and receives power from the same power supply. In addition, the FCM is also connected to a separate power supply to add redundancy to the system.”
Looking back to the schematics the Flight Control Computers providing Pilot Authority (the yoke, rudder and throttles) connect directly to the ACE (Actuator Control Electronics) which move the control surfaces when the aircraft flies in DIRECT mode. L-NAV and V-NAV or FULL Autopilot modes still allow input from the Pilot Ace as if in DIRECT mode but you need to give the yoke a bit of stick if you’ll pardon the pun.
In BHUAP Mode I told you the AIMS takes over the FCC function when Pilot Authority has been denied. Well this is exactly how it is done, the FCC lives in AIMS now, and has a completely separate power supply to the cockpit. Rather than BHUAP switching bits and pieces off here and there, like it had to in BHUAP 1995 – 2002 (Honeywell AIMS-2), for MH370 it just hit the cockpit main switch and ran the AIMS on the redundant UPS (uninterruptable power supply). Keep it simple stupid – BHUAP only needs AIMS to run. AIMS contains everything needed, including the SOFTWARE ROUTINE Unauthorised Flight Detector.
Here’s how Honeywell justify it:
“The BMA of the prior art did not include an FCC, because some argue that the critical components and the non-critical components should not be placed in the same IMA housing or cabinet, to avoid having the failure of a non-critical component effect the availability of a critical component. Because the Flight Control Computer directly controlled the primary control surfaces, the Flght Control Computer was Critical in the prior art.”
Oh, so when did Pilot Authority become NON-CRITICAL?…answer, sometime after Civil Case 1:08-1600 (RMC) was dismissed in a Fraud against Judge Rosemary M. Collyer involving ALPA persons Rob Plunkett, Susan Kalfus, James Johnson, Pete Janhunen, John Prater, Randy Babbitt and, by extension, Lee Moak.
“Therefore, the prior art placed the Flight Control Computers in a separate module to ensure that the failure of the IMA would not result in the failure of the primary flight control surfaces. There are several disadvantages to this approach. The first disadvantage is the added development cost because of the need for similar redundancy. The development costs for the software is almost doubled because the software must be developed twice. Furthermore, there is extra weight on the airplane because of the need for a separate Flight Control Computer with a separate power supply and separate processing capabilities. The separation of the FCC results in another disadvantage because of the way a typical FCC communicates with the IMA over a standard ARINC 629 bus.
The ARINC 629 bus is slower than the bus internal to the IMA. Thus, for the IMA to transmit data to the FCC as it is being processed, either less data must be transmitted, or the same data must be transmitted over a longer period of time. Because of the importance of receiving information in a timely manner, prior art designers chose to transmit less data. Therefore, a separate FCC does not receive the full flight information generated by the IMA. What is needed is a system that alleviates or eliminates these problems.” [ thanks to your source Sandy at ARINC in Annapolis ]
YEAH, AND CHEAP USUALLY MEANS YOU CREATE A NEW PROBLEM. Something large should have been Fully Digitally Intergrated with their [redacted] (FDIA)!
Moreover this was the technology installed by Honeywell-PMA (parts manufacture authority) into the 757 and 767 fleet starting in 2000.
Nothing more needs to be said unless ALPA can prove 9/11 happened prior to 2000.
Three FIGG’d Wisers Deluxe in TA out.
FLASH2 – if you get in a fully programmed Sim that you can tamper with, program a flight route and then use the Maintenance Access Terminal through the CDA to enact patent “US 6470224 B1” and start turning off the switches. I bet the Sim will still fly and land the route with only the AIMS running after cockpit avionics power has been severed from the main bus.
Rough schematics and instructions for the Secondary Power Distribution Assembly can be found at US 6470224 B1.
If you visit the region again suggest you speak to your former Singapore AF students; they and their observations were spot on.
WD40
Korat/[redacted]
Source: http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/05/civil-case-108-1600-rmc-fraud-upon.html
Duqu
That “Abel Danger” is funny. If I could ever figure out what the hell he is talking about. He just fires off words !
QRS-11 is funny to. It basically puts “commercial Airlines” in the same category as “Military Fighters”. That’s how paranoid the USA gets. Technically Boeing can’t sell airliners to China !
Greetings all. Just thought I’d drop by and see…..
If this has been covered; apologies, but this event in March seems significant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/world/asia/chinese-hackers-pursue-key-data-on-us-workers.html
Never happened to me …but
“We were on a re-dispatch release, not a reserve release, so this was not a regulatory issue but in investigating we discovered the ACARS had dumped its initialization page which caused the aircraft not to report or accept ACARS messages. There is no notification to the pilot when/if this occurs other than troubleshooting when not receiving a response for an ACARS request or as I routinely do, look at the update to be sure Dispatch is receiving fuel reports. We had received all ETOPS required information, so the initialization dump had occurred after oceanic entry and after ETOPS weather was received. We did not write this up in aircraft log book as this has happened to me about 4 times in the last 3 weeks, and appears not to be an aircraft specific issue but more of a system systemic issue as it has occurred to me on different 777 aircraft. I sent messages to the Dispatcher telling him I was going to file a report and he indicated this has been an issue recently. The concerns I have is the flight following threat with Dispatch not able to contact the flight via SATCOM ACARS, also the security issues of immediate security messages sent through ACARS, and possible inability to receive ACARS clearances for oceanic entry. I encouraged the Dispatcher to file a report as well, to determine if this is a fleet specific issue to the 777 related to the AUTO INIT function of ACARS, dispatch software, or hardware issue with the flight following equipment”.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/sister-of-mh370-pilot/1258760.html
The pilot’s sister says suicide does not make sense.
The crowd-funding effort by families of those who perished on MH370 has been extended after it failed to meet its goal:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/flight-mh370/57641/flight-mh370-pilot-practised-landing-on-island-runway
The “island runway” thing is odd.
When in a “sim” at home I make landings at odd places.
You get bored…and it’s not the company jet you’re in. You do anything.
Even “air rage” !
Malaysia are lying, Indonesia aren’t helping out.
Ping “one” and “two” is odd (73 mins to cover 195 miles !)
The “South route” on “auto” nails the PIC whichever way you look at it.
And you need a “hypoxia event” to have taken place for that to happen.
An “aircraft in distress” and zooming about trying to get somewhere seems likely.
Oh dear god, another Malasian plain has crashed with 295 people on board.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/ukraine-crash-airplane-idUSL6N0PS57720140717
Edit: Malaysian plane !!!
malaysian airlines boeing 777 crashed in ukraine today.
boeing 777 malaysian airlines shot down in 10.000 meters altitude at ukrainian/russian border.
flight was Amsterdam-kuala lumpur.
Geez, BB, what sane person flies Mas now ?
Boeing 777-200ER
Malaysian airlines
flight amsterdam kuala lumpur (same flight number)
shot down by air-air missile
crash site Shakthyorsk, ukraine.
‘The Interfax news agency reported that the aircraft went missing near Donetsk. It is feared that the aircraft has been shot down.’
TV pictures from the scene showed a pall of smoke billowing into the sky apparently from the stricken aircraft.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696161/BREAKING-NEWS-Malaysian-passenger-plane-carrying-295-people-crashes-Ukraine-near-Russian-border.html#ixzz37k5P20HG
airplane code 9M-MRD
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/9m-mrd
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/777/28411,9M-MRD-Malaysia-Airlines.php
Same airline, same aircraft type, same cargo?
Was it travelling with a payload of lithium batteries and mangosteens?
Some reports say it was glowing orange while coming down.
This looks like a devastating explosion.
http://rt.com/news/173628-malaysian-plane-crash-ukraine/
Well here’s one for the conspiracists;
Number 17 was mysterious for this aircraft as it was its 17th birthday, the number was MH17—had first flight on July 17 1997—crashed on July 17.
Crashed 7 month 2014 2+1+4 = 7
http://www.dnd.com.pk/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-surface-air-missile-eastern-ukraine/