Flight MH370: Malaysian radar, passenger phone contact, high-altitude hypoxia

Page 4 of 5  
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:48:03 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

But again, it didn't just head on it's existing heading to nowhere. It made many course changes. It even had to make another huge one after it left radar contact headed on the normal flight paths to India. Someone was either hand flying it, changing the autopilot settings, or had put it on that specific course.
Another thing no one has mentioned. Malaysian military said they had it on radar somewhere over the Straits at 29,500 ft. No one AFAIK has commented on that. That;s not a standard altitude. They assing even altitudes going west and odd going east. If it was consistenly flying at 29,500 when last seen, that's another indication that it was deliberate. You have a plane with no ATC contact, so your chances of colliding with another plane are less at that in between altitude.

I'd always take the NTSB, which has by far the most experience and the highest credibility in investigating accidents over a third world board, like Indonesia. NTSB probably does 100X the crash investigations that Indonesia does. You're gettng a good example of the difference right now in MA370. Also, NTSB had no dog in that fight. Indonesia did.
The jury under the Superior

Well, that's pretty bizarre and a good example of a screwed up judge. Why in the world would you not allow the jury to hear the opinions of the NTSB, who are expert witnesses? Makes no sense.

Then show us a previous incident where a plane ever did anything like this where it was caused by something other than human intervention:
transponders go dead ACARS goes dead, both of those 2 mins after last normal communication No more communication Yet plane continues to fly, making controlled turns, aligns with a new flight path on the other side of a country Makes at least one other sharp turn to the left Flies for 8 hours after whatever incident initiated all this.

Settling it, probably not. Finding out a lot more, like what mental state the pilots were in, who those Iranians really were and what they might have been up to, etc that could help and might settle it. For example if it turns out that one or more of them really was a terrorist. How exactly anyone is going to do the latter, IDK. You're worried about the Malaysians covering things up. I'd be far more suspicous of the Iranians not wanting to look too hard and/or cover-up what they find out about the 3 Iranians. Another good question, WTF has been done about that Ali guy that was selling stolen passports and who the two talked to for a long time the night before the flight? Last I heard they said he couldn't be found in Thailand and had probably gone back to Iran. He should be under arrest by now. And it's also a little curious that the tickets were paid for in cash, and not by Ali, but by some other person he sent to do it at the travel agency. They only had a backpack and two notebooks when dropped off at the airport. Does that sound like two guys relocating to Europe? You would think they sure would have checked luggage.

Another example of "expert" stupidity. In the last scenario, how was the cabin crew going to intervene? One pilot gets the other out of the cockpit and deadbolts the door. How is the rest of the flight crew going to intervene? Chop down the door? Maybe, but that would sure take awhile. And if they were trying that, it could explain the climb to 45,000 to either shove them back from the door and/or make sure they ran out of oxygen before they could succeed.

It's still possible, but it doesn't fit the facts of how the airplane behaved. If was depressurisation, why was it flying at 29,500 feet over the Straits, not 8,000 ft? What in the world was it doing there, making normal type of turns, etc to begin with? If the fire damaged so much stuff, why didn't it damage the flight controls? If it did, then you'd have a plane wandering aimlessly, appearing uncontrollable, but that isn't what you have here. Instead from all indication so far, the only thing the fire or mechanical failure did would have been to take out the radio, ACARS, transponders and it also happened at exactly the ideal spot for the plane to go missing, ie just as it was handed off from one ATC to the next. You had one ATC no longer paying attention to it because it had left their control and the other not paying attention because it never logged in with them, which it should have done immediately after that last communication with Malaysian ATC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:1b178649-5961-411d-b6d5-
<stuff snipped>

(Couldn't resist - the Malaysian authorities "they assing" for sure!)

When you have a plane with such remarkable avionics that inexperienced Saudi terrorists can hit a narrow vertical target like the WTC - twice - you really have to consider what those systems can do. Time and again pilots say they are very hard to deliberately crash.
The autopilot is perfectly capable of hitting pre-programmed waypoints - that's the way it works. So hitting waypoints, changing direction and changing altitude are all within the abilities of both human and computer pilots. How do you conclude "it hit a waypoint (like autopilots do 1,000's of times a day) or flew at altitude X so therefore it was manned." I just don't see it. You yourself indicate it's not really a fact, it's an "indication" but the question is what does it indicate? What does it prove? Unfortunately it doesn't prove much of anything other than the airplane changed height and course for reasons unknown.

Collide with *what* at 1AM? Why would a pilot who was determined to commit suicide give a damn if he collided with another plane? Was he heading for a sentimental location in the Indian Ocean to die and no other spot would do? There's another issue: How do we know he was consistently flying at 29,000 feet? That's a big if given how many things can interfere with getting an accurate altitude fix via radar at a distance.
http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS%20Radio%20Navigation.html
<<Two types of radar systems are in use: Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR ) and Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR ). Both provide range (distance) and azimuth (direction) information of a target relative to a station.
PSR is non-enhanced radar that conveys information to the operator based only on radar reflections from contacts, and therefore is the only system that can detect weather precipitation. PSR does not rely on information transmitted from an aircraft, and therefore does not provide altitude data.>> "Does NOT provide altitude data." So how can you (or anyone) be certain that the plane was at the altitudes alleged? I realize that it's possible to guess altitudes and triangulate from radar an satellite fixes but AFAIK, there are no other planes that actually witnessed the plane flying at that height. In the beginning, and perhaps still, there was some serious doubt about the blips actually *being* MH370. Even the Inmarsat satellite data comes from snapshots spaced one hour apart. A lot can change in one hour.
(cont.) <<In contrast, SSR relies on airborne transponder and measures data based on SSR interrogation and transponder replies. SSR cannot provide position information for aircraft that are not transponder equipped; nor can it provide information on weather. Its operation advantage is derived from increased range, positive identification and altitude information.>>
So from everything I've read so far, the last accurate altitude fix we have for MH370 is the last transponder transmission. Everything else is "soft" and either is guesswork or suspect data from the MGov. Building hypotheses on soft data means the conclusions are likely to be soft, too.
Just looking at how far the plane was from land (and ground based radars) I really have my doubts about the accuracy of any alleged altitude information. Worse, still, the article below says of the rise to 43,000 feet: <<A source, who wished to remain anonymous, told MailOnline: 'It was tracked flying at this altitude for 23 minutes before descending. Oxygen would have run out in 12 minutes [in a depressurised cabin], rendering the passengers unconscious.'>> Anytime you read the words "remain anonymous" be very suspect:
Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2588109/How-got-After-Malaysia-Airlines-jet-said-crashed- Indian-Ocean-look-ended-far-course.html
<< Mary Schiavo, an aviation analyst and former inspector general for the U.S. Department of Transportation, [says] 'Now, if we have a scenario where something happened, the plane made a dramatic turn and dropped from 35,000 feet to 12,000 feet, this scenario would fit what a pilot would do in the event of a catastrophic on-board event, such as a rapid decompression, a fire, an explosion. 'That's what you would have to do, descend, get down and turn around and try to get back to an airport that could accommodate an ailing plane.'>>
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 4, 2014 1:12:34 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

I didn't say it had to be manned to fly where it went. Only that it could be done two ways:
1 - Hand fly it
2 - Someone entered the new flight path into the autopilot, either via waypoints or by making numerous changes over time in the autopilot heading and altitude and turned it on.
It hitting 3 specific waypoints over the Straits, ending with it aligned on a normal flight path to India/Middle East was reported in the first week of the investigation. The Malaysians then went further and said those waypoints were entered early in the flight. Later, they retracted the last part. I have not heard anyone say the waypoint part is not true. But it is based on the Malaysians, where a lot of things have turned out to later be wrong. So, we don't know for sure. But if you're going to come up with theories, you either have to use what we know or else it's just pure conjecture. If those waypoints are correct, then it points almost certainly to human involvement. Here's a map of the 3 waypoints over the Straits that were reported:
http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/malaysia-air-way-points-featured.jpg
You yourself indicate it's not really a fact, it's an

It doesn't prove anything conclusively, but it sure is indicative of criminal human involvement. And it's not indicative of a fire, mechanical failure, pilots passed out, etc.
What does it prove?

If you put it together with all the other data, the highest probability by far is not some mechanical failure, fire etc. Again some of the rest of that is:
whatever happened first started at precisely the best point to dissappear, ie just as they were handed off from one ATC and where they failed to then contact the next. That process usually takes about 1 minute. So, if this is just some major mechanical, electrical, problem, whatever, the probability that it happened in that one minute window of a 6 hour flight, is 1/360 = .0027%. Even if they took a couple mins before trying to check in with Vietnam ATC, it would still be less than half a percent. Possible? Sure. But not likely.
whatever happened, if it was not deliberate, resulted in losing the radios, ACARS, transponders, etc
left the plane capable of flying 8 hours on a course to Australia in a controlled mannner

Other airplanes, obviously. The sky is still full of airplanes at night.

That's a legitimate question. Could be that he had it in his head that he wanted the Amelia Earhart mystery, where they'd never find the wreckage. Or it could be as I said before, that it was not the pilot, but someone else who hijacked it with other motives, ie fly it into a target in Middle East, but then something went wrong part way through the mission. Or it could be that he didn't care at all about running into another plane. A pilot flying without contact with ATC, at night is already more than half way there. And I only brought that up as a possibility *if* it was continously flying at an altitude between normal flight levels. All we know is that Malaysian military said that it was at 29,500 over the Straits at one point. We don't even have the map of the flight path, the various altitudes, etc. IMO, that and the ATC communication should have been released long ago.
Was he heading for a

Maybe, who knows what a suicidal nut would do. Or it could be a hijack that didn't go like it was planned.

We don't and I believe I pointed that out in my original comments about 29,500.

You answered your own question. As your reference stated, primary radar provides distance and azimuth. That's all you need to get altitude. It's not going to be as accurate as the data you'd get with a transponder that sends back the actual altimiter reading. As to how accurate it is, that would depend on actual radar equipment. But given that radar was first deployed 70 years ago and this was modern military radar, you would think it would have decent capability. But it's a nit. The possibility of the airplane being flown at 29,500 to avoid hitting another airplane was just something I pointed out as a possibility if it turns out that it was flying at that level for awhile. We don't know if it was even flying at that altitude for long, or climbing through it, etc.
In the beginning, and perhaps still, there was some serious doubt

Sure. Again, this is a nit, it's not a central part of why most people are now focused on it being a deliberate human act. AFAIK, I'm the only one who even mentioned it.

It's not necessarily soft. You have no way of knowing what the accuracy of their military radar is. It could be that they have good accurate hits at various points, then lose it at the limits of the radar, where there are mountains in the way, etc.

The plane was only about 140 miles offshore when this whole thing first started. It then flew back right across Malaysia where you would surely think they would have good contact for some portion of it.
Worse, still, the article below says of the rise to 43,000

Which again, this plane was not doing. First, AFAIK, no one has said when it descended to 12000 ft. just that it did so at some point in the hour and a half it flew off course. Second, in a decompression, you go below 10,000. Third, they didn't head for the nearest airport, which would have been Kota Bahru, only 140 miles away. Instead the plane continues flying, making turns, appearing to be a normal flying airplane, all the way across Malaysia to the Straits and then Australia. I'd like to see Schiavo explain any of that as a fire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

Because they have no access on to the flight deck. Once the door is locked, you would need explosives to open it from the cabin.
--

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Graham.... pilots need to use the restroom in flight. If a terrorist attacks when the cockpit door is opened he could gain access to the flight deck and lock the door behind him.
--
Jax :)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:11:07 PM UTC-4, Jax wrote:

No one is arguing that. The question was raised that if the flight crew went nuts, why didn't the cabin crew stop them? Whoever illegally took control of the plane, once they deadbolt the door, the door would prevent anyone from getting in to stop them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Bigger than Texas by far and under perhaps two miles of water, too. This crash had better result in longer run times for pingers, longer recording times for the CVR and perhaps even the installation of CCTV cameras throughout the plane to monitor critical areas. Oh, and transponders that can't be turned off in air by hijackers (or anyone) without triggering a backup transponder or a ejectable ERB at the moment the transponder is switched off when flying at altitude.
I just read today, though, that the primary reason that transponders can be disabled mid-flight is because everything that could cause a fire needs to be able to be disconnected quickly by the pilots.
Certainly this game of spendings millions in search operations just to figure out where to look is plain crazy. The ACARS system needs to send out GPS packets along with the engine health data. Right now it's like a sick version of the game "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?"

It does seem remarkably stupid to have to search huge oceans meter by meter using human spotters with binoculars in an age where a plane engine can talk to satellites but can't say where it was last. At least with the AirFrance crash, there was position information sent with the monitoring data. Even knowing where that plane went down and recovering debris five days later, the black boxes, which had long gone silent, took two years to locate.
This mystery could easily replace Amelia Earhart's disappearance as the missing aircraft story of the South Pacific area.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the lost aircraft isnt the first airliner to disappear. hopefully the FAA will require on line satellite streaming of cockpit voices and all the other black box info including GPS . with a redundant can not be shut off transmitter.
this would discourage pilots bad behavior, like bringing passengers into the cockpit in flight.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:24:05 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

The big fly in that ointment is according to a story I read where they talked to a company that makes the equipment that would make that possible, the cost for the satellite time for an 8 hour flight is $3,000. That's an enormous cost to the airlines, to then be passed on to the consumer. It would be like flying a plane with 10 less passengers, which could make the difference between a profit and a loss.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:40:30 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

So whats the cost of the entire current search which will likely come up empty. let alone the costs of the family and friends?
let alone wether or not the terrorists did this, it will give them ideas..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 31, 2014 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

IDK, but the AirFrance search that took 2 years cost $40 to $50 mil. This one is no where near that yet, but will probably wind up costing more, assuming someone is willing to keep paying. I think that is coming at some point, probably months from now, ie the question of who, if anyone is willing to keep paying for the search. The Malaysians have been perfectly inept in handling it so far, so I wouldn't be surprised for them to call it quits at some point.
But back to your implication that it's worth the $3,000 cost of streaming full CVR, FDR realtime via satellite. If you do the math the cost to stream the data for all the planes flying for just one day is the same order of magnitude as the $40mil cost of the AirFrance search. That's just for the sat cost, not the hardware. Doesn't seem like a very good use of money to me. I do think there are a number of very cost effective things that could be done though. Something like what Robert suggested, ie maybe a system that sends some basic position info, even every few mins would have narrowed this down tremendously.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:80d32f5d-7a59-474c-814d-
<stuff snipped>

I read those numbers too, and I am not sure I believe them. Do you think RollsRoyce pays that much to handle its satellite link? I doubt it. The problem is that the airlines often talk about streaming ALL the black box data to a satellite when the simple addition of a GPS long/lat component to the engine data is all that's really needed to prevent the outrageous mess we're in with flight MH370.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

RR's is not getting all the realtime flight data across the entire airplane updated every second. From what I read they get engine snapshot data just a few times during flight: during takeoff, climb, cruise, after landing. That's apparently all they need. They probably would get something else if the engine controls detected something wrong, but the point is they are sending a very limited amount of data. Even the A330 had a limited subset of what the flight data recorder had.
The

Apparently more than that is required, because AFAIK, they have no engine data. ACARS was turned off. The WSJ ran a story saying that a source at RR had told them they had engine data. RR refused to comment. Over the next day, the story morphed into what we know now, which is that ACARS was off, but the handshake between the transitter/receiver on the plane and sat continued, once an hour, with no actual data sent.
But I agree it sounds like something could be added in the future. The next problem is what do you allow to be turned off. If you're concerned with anything from a malfunction to a fire, one of the most basic things you usually want is the ability to open a breaker and turn it off. Not sure how you solve that.
I just heard something new on CNN, who's pretty much covering this 24/7. That is that the US airline practice is that if one pilot is going to leave the cockpit, a flight attendent has to enter the cockpit and stay there until he returns. The idea being mostly from a safety standpoint that you don't want a pilot to deadbolt the door and then pass out, fall asleep, whatever so that the returning pilot can't get in. They said overseas airlines don't typically follow that, for what it's worth.
I know you don't want to hear anymore about the nut pilot theory. But I still say it's the highest probability scenario that fits the facts. And if it's one of them, I'd put odds on it being the senior one, ie Shah. To pull this off, you'd either have to kill the other pilot, disable them somehow, or just get them out of the cockpit and deadbolt the door. The latter is the easiest. The co-pilot was 27, had only flown the 777 about 7 times. It would be easy for the 19,000 hour pilot to send him on some wild goose chase, get him out of the cabin at the right time, ie so that it would happen before changing ATC's. A lot easier I think than vice-versa.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:54:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

But then you still get the same logic. The pilot should have control of that too, incase there is a fire.
I guess you could make it rechargeable and self contained.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 08:38:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

We have to also consider it might have been a flight attendant. They have free access to the cockpit, screening is cursory at best They probably pay as much attention to what they take off the plane as what they bring on. (the Jackie Brown thing). A FA could have gained access to the cockpit, capped the pilots and done the rudimentary "video game:" flying necessary to fly a plane out over the ocean then just waited for it to run out of fuel. Maybe that explains the radical movements in the early part of the takeover too. (S)he may have had a little learning curve.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 11:48:20 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The part that doesn't fit with that is disabling ACARS. Depending on who you believe, it's either done via the diplay/keyboard or by pulling a breaker that's apperently not readily identifiable. Whatever is required, it sounds like you need more knowledge than a FA would have. I could see the FA turning off the transponder, which is clearly labeled, in the middle of th console. But doubt they would know about ACARS too. At least for the typical FA. If it's some Al-Qaeda type thing, then they certainly could have trained anyone, FA, passenger (those Iranians?), about how to make sure transponders, ACARS, etc get turned off. Even if they don't know how to fly the plane, they could easily teach them enough to make sure the pilots did it under force.
I'm just amazed that there are no reporters going to Iran to ask questions, find the families, friends, etc of the two Iranians. It's like they aren't on any list of known terrorists and the story of them going on stolen passports to Europe is just accepted by everyone. At least the media. They've talked about flaming tires, hypoxia, mechanical failure, etc, but nobody ever brings up these guys, the guy Ali who disapperard from Thailand, apparently back to Iran, etc. What's up with that? Malaysia officials say they have reports back on all the passengers and crew from the various countries of origing and nothing suspicous has turned up. That means Iran apparently has said the two are OK by them, but who would trust that? On the other hand, IDK what the Malaysian officials can really do to force an investigation in another country. That's why it sure would be good if one of those talking heads from CNN would go to Iran and start poking around.
Speaking of CNN, they have 6 talking head "experts" going 24/7 on the screen at the same time on this thing. All they need are two more and Paul Lynde and they'd have the old Hollywood Squares game show.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

I still believe any air crew member who wanted to, could gain access to any book about the plane they fly.

CNN has become unwatchable. They have about 15 minutes worth of new information every day and they repeat it all day. The guy in the simulator was interesting for a while but he was there for over a week. It did demonstrate that virtually anyone could learn to fly a 777 in a few hours, as long as the computer was still working and you had an uneventful flight. Mythbusters demonstrated this with their "can a passenger really land an airliner" segment. They had a pilot tell them what to dial in to make a flawless landing in a simulator and neither had ever flown anything before.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 1:10:52 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Yes, I agree. But for starters, you'd have to know about and care about ACARS. A lot of people know about transponders, especially post 911 and it wouldn't take much to figure out how to turn it off. I'm just saying that to get to the level of ACARS, it's more typical of some far more sinister 911 type plot or it could have been done by someone who already knows about it. Some FA gone looney isn't likely to even know or care about it.

Don Lemon I think is the worst. BREAKING NEWS: "So, they just have a search plane that reported seeing 3 orange objects, what do you make of that, MR. Expert?", is typical. The only good thing about it is that since they repeat it non-stop, you can tune in for 10 mins anytime for an update to see if anything is really new.

Yes, assuming the aircraft is something like the 777 or most others today that can do a Cat 3 landing, etc, the plane will fly itself to an ILS landing once you enter the commands, so I would think it would be relatively easy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:26349609-6378-440b-9825-
<stuff snipped>

For you to be so certain, you'd have to prove conclusively that there wasn't. You're very much in favor of the hostile act theory and bombs are a very common tactic against airliners. Yet you're seemingly able to discount the bomb theory based on no direct knowledge of what happened inside the plane after the last contact.
We already know (although you hotly dispute it), that modern jetliners are far more resistant to the small bombs typical of what people are able to smuggle aboard. Plenty of people have tried to bring planes down with bombs and more than half have failed. But a small bomb in the cabin - where the pilots are known to have allowed outsider access - could explain immediate radio silence and disruption of the automatic control systems.
If you wanted to bring down a modern jetliner, the best spot for a bomb would be in the avionics bay. Alternatively, placing a bomb in the cargo hold with the lithium battery cargo could make for a very serious in-flight situation. To assume that there *had* to be someone controlling the aircraft based on squirrelly radar data, zero radio data and only satellite pinging of ACARS just isn't supportable.
The point really is that we have absolutely no idea what went on in that cockpit. We have alleged radar sightings that may be accurate or not given the distances and we assume the plane flew into the oceans. I contend there's no way to categorically exclude a bomb because a) it's a popular way to bring down an airplane and b) no one was there to witness whatever happened who can tell us *what* happened.

They probably had no choice - someone had already gotten hold of the real transcript. Many people, myself included, feel the cover-up was related to the Malaysian government not wanting to reveal how poor their air defense system is. That's a big national security issue and more than enough reason for them to have misled the world from the start.

I have to agree with stupid rather than malicious first, but in this case they were definitely putting out serious misinformation, for whatever reason. Whether evil or just plain incompetent, it makes relying on anything the MGov says a mistake.

If any of those organization did leak something, we have the same mess we've had before where the host government either kicks those organizations out or disputes their reports. The Egyptian government hotly disputed the suicidal pilot theory reached by the NTSB. A Federal jury also disputed the suicidal pilot theory re: the Silk Air flight.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 4, 2014 1:35:56 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

There is nothing at all here consistent with a bomb going off. If it were a catastrophic bomb, the airplane would have gone right down. If it wasn't there would almost certainly be a mayday call. The plane would have headed for the nearest airport, not go flying in a controlled fashion over Malaysia, to the Straits, to Australia. And it would have to be one hell of a magical bomb to leave the airplane capable of controlled flight for 8 hours, all the way to it's normal fuel range in fact, yet take out all the things that you need to take out, ie radio, ACARS, transponder, etc, at precisely the minute or so in flight where it's ideal to deliberately do it.

More bizarre theories. I assume you mean a bomb in the cockpit (that is where pilots allowed guests access). How the hell does a bomb in the cockpit just happen to take out the radio, transponders, ACARS, but leave the flight controls undamaged so the plane can still fly onto a new course for 8 hours? Good grief. Any such bomb and the plane would have gone right down. A bomb in the cabin that results in limited damage, sure that's possible. But again it would have to be one magical bomb to take out what it needs to take out to make the plane go missing, leave the plane not going to the nearest airport, but flying on 8 hours, etc.

Where it would destroy the avionics including the flight controls and the flight would have ended immediately.
Alternatively, placing a bomb in the cargo

It's about 3 orders of magnitude more likely than the magic bomb in the avionics bay theory.

Categorically exclude it? No, of course not. But it's way down on the list compared to deliberate human action by one of the pilots or a hijacker. The latter fits all the data well. The bomb fits almost nothing.

But they haven't just mislead with regard to that. They've mislead on a lot of other info too.

Well, if you refuse to rely on the official data, which is all we have then you can't begin to put together theories, because you have nothing at all to go on.

Nonsense. Any and all these sources have leaked plenty of stuff. There have been countless reports, including for example the WSJ story that they broke about the satellite handshakes, that came from leaks in the US, UK, etc.
The Egyptian government hotly disputed the suicidal

What good is a jury conclusion where they were not allowed to see the most credible expert evidence on record, ie the NTSB report? IF anything, it just shows how screwed in the head some judges are to not allow that in.
And all the reports on the Egyptians having issue with the cause that I ever saw were not based on anything factual, just their refusal to accept the best evidence there was and try to blame it on the airplane when NTSB said it was not possible. Who do you trust to investigate an air crash and come to the right conclusion? The Egypt govt investigators? How many air crashes do they investigate? Folks send them black boxes for analysis? Plus, the NTSB had no dog in the fight. It was a plane built in Europe and an Egpytian airline.
Not that any of that matters. Everyone knows that there are plenty of suicidal nut cases around and with hundreds of thousands of pilots, not to hard to fathom there could be one every once in a while. All it takes is one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.