To add to the mystery, here's an article from a newspaper
in the Maldive Islands about a mysterious object that washed
up on the beach there. There is a clear photo of it and it
sure looks like the fire suppression bottles used on aircraft.
If you google for pics of airplane fire bottle you'll find
pics that are very similar. They are used to put out engine
fires, cargo bay fires, etc and are built into the plane.
Should be easy to find out if this is from a 777 and perhaps
even the 777, as it should have indentifying info. Or it
could be something else. But if it sure doesn't look like
the typical junk that washes up on a beach. And if it was
from MH370, it's within range of the jet, but not anywhere
near the two possible arcs they came up with. The Maldives
are southwest of the southern tip of India. That was the
direction the plane was heading when it left the Straits....
You might be able to find this movie on YouTube:
<<The story is a biting examination of the seedy relationship between the
press, the news it reports and the manner in which it reports it. . . . The
film's plot was inspired by two real-life events. The first involved W.
Floyd Collins, who in 1925 was trapped inside Sand Cave, Kentucky, following
a landslide. A Louisville newspaper, the Courier-Journal, jumped on the
story by dispatching reporter William Burke Miller to the scene. Miller's
enterprising coverage turned the tragic episode into a national event and
earned the writer a Pulitzer Prize. Collins's name is cited in the film as
an example of a cave-in victim who becomes a media sensation. The second
event took place in April 1949. Three-year-old Kathy Fiscus of San Marino,
California, fell into an abandoned well and, during a rescue operation that
lasted several days, thousands of people arrived to watch the action unfold.
In both cases, the victims died before they were rescued. . . . The
Hollywood Reporter called it "ruthless and cynical...a distorted study of
corruption and mob psychology that...is nothing more than a brazen,
uncalled-for slap in the face of two respected and frequently effective
American institutions - democratic government and the free press.">>
Which more or less means they "told it as it is" and TPTB didn't like it.
It's a great explanation of why the media loves these sorts of events. They
are cheap to cover, the story dribbles out over days (weeks, months, years
for the MH370) and all they need to find is some battling talking heads and
a graphic artists to make PowerPoint slides. It's got the human interest
angle (all those lost souls), it's got the gee-whiz techno angle and it's
almost lawsuit proof.
It's nothing new. We've seen it before with the OJ case (remember all the
talking heads yakking their heads off during that trial?) and plenty of
other disasters. This latest one has people's attention because while we
spy on everyone's phone calls and internet searches, we can't seem to keep
track of a huge plane with over 200 people aboard. It doesn't seem to make
With a virtually endless supply of airplane-like flotsam in the Indian Ocean
even if they never find the plane this story will keeping coming back like a
case of malaria. I read that they are searching an area the size of Poland
with a towed hydrophone that travels at 3.5mph. Do the math. They have a
better chance of winning the Powerball. Finding pieces of the wreck will be
less and less helpful as each day passes because ocean currents could have
pushed the debris 100's of miles from the crash site by now.
What surprises me is that no one's claimed they landed on a stealth aircraft
carrier. Or at least I haven't read about it yet.
On Monday, March 31, 2014 2:53:11 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
I did learn something interesting from CNN last night. They had
someone on who was involved with the AirFrance search. I had assumed,
as you probably did, that they located the floating wreckage and then back
tracked from that to find the airplane. She said that they had 3
different conclusions of where to search. One was based on Coast Guard
models, one on French experts, IDK who the third was, maybe Woods Hole
or similar. They ended up trying the Coast Guard modeling, but that
isn't how they found the wreckage. She said it wound up being where
estimates based on where the plane was flying from other data.
There are allegations that the 20 Freescale Semiconductor employees
were ECM Warfare experts and that's why it was hijacked. Or that those
employees were doing a test to make the plane disappear. That's pretty
dumb. Freescale used to be Motorola's embedded processor division, which
Mot spun off. They make microcontrollers, signal processors, etc that
can be used in anything from cars to industrial control and some of the
do wind up in military applications. But they are pretty far from a
skunk works company, plus the smarts AFAIK, are still in the USA.
The folks on the plane were going from Malaysia to some meeting in
China and I'd be they were fab or assembly type people, not even
chip designers, not that it matter that much.
That's why I think they stand some chance of finding MH370 - because of the
satellite data from the engines. The tricky part is figuring out how much
fuel the plane had left - if it was flying low it was consuming a lot more
fuel than it would at cruise altitude. But there are only a few days left
on the pingers' batteries so they're going to have to get extraordinarly
lucky to find the wreck while scanning at 3.5 mph.
Yeah, I came across those claims early on. Apparently they're back to your
theory that someone on the plane did something criminal BUT you have to
remember these are the Keystone Cops of the air disaster recovery business.
Just today they recanted yet another piece of data, claiming that the last
words from the plane weren't as previously reported. C'mon. If they can't
get details like THAT right, why should we believe any of the far more
complicated evidence they've offered. This has got to be hell on wheels for
the relatives of the passengers and crew. Worse, still, a Brit tabloid
erroneously reported that Capt. Shah had a falling out with his daughter.
<<"You should consider making movies since you are so good at making up
stories and scripts out of thin air," Aishah Zaharie wrote. "May God have
mercy on your souls.">>
<<Weeks ago, Malaysian authorities said the last message from the airplane
cockpit was, "All right, good night."
The sign-off to air traffic controllers, which investigators said was spoken
by the plane's copilot, were among the few concrete details officials
released in a mystery that's baffled investigators and drawn global
attention since the Boeing 777 disappeared with 239 people aboard mid-flight
on March 8.
There's only one problem. It turns out, it wasn't true.
On Monday, Malaysia's Transport Ministry said the final voice transmission
from the cockpit of Flight 370 was actually "Good night Malaysian three
Maybe calling them Keystone Cops is too charitable. More like the Three
On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:25:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
It's not satellite data from the engines. That is part of ACARS, which
was turned off. All they have are basic handshakes from the plane
transceiver to the satellite, once an hour, not engine data. It's kind
of like going around with your cell phone and not talking or sending any
texts, data, etc.
I'm also curious how they are getting doppler effect out of this.
To do that you'd have to know that the sat is receiving on say
freq 206.0001 or whatever versus 206.0000. I'm amazed that the sat
would have that precision or even care. Like what would be the
need for it? The sat has to tune into freq 206 to communicate
with the plane. You would think it would just lock onto and
use anything at the freq 206 +/- some delta. So, I'm really curious
how they know with such precision the freq difference caused by the
movement of the airplane. Doppler radar works that way, but there
the eqpt is specifically designed to meaure the tiny freq difference.
>The tricky part is figuring out how much
I doubt it's possible to determine that with much certainty, except
that if it was flying at less than somewhere around normal cruise
altitude, it never would have made it that distance.
They know the arc on which it made it's last hourly handshake.
They know that 8 mins? later it made what appeared to be a
partial handshake of some kind. That arc of the last odd handshake
plus the glide distance is the area where I'd be looking in the remaining
few days of pinger. But even that is huge, with little hope.
But there are only a few days left
I agree they should have corrected this early on and there is
no excuse. And you're right that it leaves you wondering what else
Not that it's any excuse, but I wonder if they even have anyone
that watches the major news channels and what is being reported,
how much focus is being put on certain things, 24/7.
If I was running this thing, I'd have some PR person doing that,
just to spot major disasters like this and head them off.
This has got to be hell on wheels for
But she didn't add much besides denouncing it. As I understand it
they based their story on what one of her friends said she had
told that friend about her father. We really know next to nothing
about the family dynamic there, etc.
That fits. Also it's worth noting that while the final communication
is now more consistent with what should have occured, ie now at least
the flight # is repeated, it's still not normal. They pilot should
have included repeating back the actual instruction, eg
Contact Ho Chi Minh Center, 207.9, good night, Malsysian 370.
That is an important part that isn't right. They normally always
read back the intruction, in this case the freq, to make sure
they have it correct. Not sure that you can read much into it
one way or the other though. Was he deviating from normal because
of a hijack to try to alert them? I heard one "expert" say that
each US airline has some normal sounding "code words", if you will
to alert of a hijacking. IDK how that would work though. How
would ATC know the "code words" for each airline, etc? And like
so much, maybe it's BS.
<<Since satellite pings are carried on a radio wave, the sensed wavelength,
frequency increase or decrease depending on the fact the aircraft is moving
towards or away from the satellite.
The difference between the expected received frequency and the actual
measured one due to Doppler Effect is known as Burst Frequency Offset.
By comparing the Burst Frequency Offset due to Doppler on MH370 against the
predicted one based on six B777s flying on the same day, INMARSAT could
determine close correlation for the southern route and eliminate the
In recent days Inmarsat developed a second innovative technique which
considers the velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite. Depending
on this relative movement, the frequency received and transmitted will
differ from its normal value, in much the same way that the sound of a
passing car changes as it approaches and passes by. This is called the
Doppler effect. The Inmarsat technique analyses the difference between the
frequency that the ground station expects to receive and that actually
measured. This difference is the result of the Doppler effect and is known
as the Burst Frequency Offset.
The Burst Frequency Offset changes depending on the location of the aircraft
on an arc of possible positions, its direction of travel, and its speed. In
order to establish confidence in its theory, Inmarsat checked its
predictions using information obtained from six other B777 aircraft flying
on the same day in various directions. There was good agreement.
While on the ground at Kuala Lumpur airport, and during the early stage of
the flight, MH370 transmitted several messages. At this stage the location
of the aircraft and the satellite were known, so it was possible to
calculate system characteristics for the aircraft, satellite, and ground
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:16:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
I agree it can be done and the method. The main point is that I'm
surprised the satellite has the capability of measuring and recording
the freq to 10 digits of precision, saves that info, so that days later
you can go back and look at it, etc. For communications purposes, AFAIK
it's useless because the channels aren't that far apart and all you
need do is lock onto it. You don't care if it's off by the tiny doppler
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 11:14:49 PM UTC-4, Gz wrote:
I agree you can measure it, the main point is why would the satellite
be measuring it and recording it to the level of precision required
for doppler analysis? That's like what? 10 digits of precision? If
a sat is trying to receive a particular freq for communication, the
freq precision required is nowhere near that.
I don't know the precision in the system.
I'll give another example. I had worked at a tracking station on ground. We
would receive one or more of the ALSEP packages on the moon, placed by
astronauts. We would lock on and record Doppler. The Doppler could detect
moonquakes, and I forget what else. Two stations across the globe would do
the same thing. This was a VLBI experiment. So, Doppler can be precise.
Normal ranging systems first determine delay or distance. Doppler can then
update that range without further input.
earth orbit can create frequency changes of hundreds of KHtz at
gigahertz frequencies. The receiver has to be able to track a wide
range of frequencies around the desired center frequency. It doesn't
need to measure the offset with 10 digits of precision to obtain
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 9:48:50 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
Sure, track and lock the receiver transmitter onto, sure. That's
easy and has to be done. But record that a particular airplane is
at 206.0000000001 at one time, vs 206.000000004? No reason I can
see that the satellite would care or bother to record such info.
Unless you're doing doppler anlysis, why would you care?
It has to be able to measure somewhere around 10 digits to measure
doppler shift due to the speed/direction of the airplane.
Learn to trim your posts, please.
The satellite downloads the digital waveform and it is preserved by
the ground station for some time. Used for various signal quality
analysis purposes post facto independent of the aforementioned usage.
too many zeros in those examples (at least 3 too many). Second, if
using your examples, subtract 206 from each one. If you are measuring
deviation from the desired center frequency, the difference between 1
and 4 is much more significant than 206.0000000001 and 206.0000000004.
You need to be analyzing numbers in the Hz/kHz range - not 10 digits
of precision. You analyze the difference - not the raw number.
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:29:59 AM UTC-4, Pat wrote:
Of course you analyze the difference and that's where the the number of
digits of precision come in. The freq shift is relative to the speed
of radio waves which for practical purposes you can use c, the speed of
light. The shift in freq is proportional to the speed of the objects
compared to c, ie it's v/c. c = 186,000miles/sec. the plane is going
500 mph, or about .14 miles/sec. So the freq shift is aprox .14/186,000
or 7 x 10-7. So you'd need 7 digits of precision to see it, 8 or 9 to
get the actual speed. And again, for just locking onto a freq, in
a transmitter or reciver for data communication, I don't see why you'd
need that level of precision, nor why you'd record it. I guess they
do, but IDK why.
On this page there is a chart that shows the range of the four
satellites that Inmarsat uses. The satellites are at 0 Latitude.
Their longitudes are listed as 178E, 54W, 15.5W, 74E.
It looks like 64E is the satellite they used to obtain pings from the
plane. Anyone know if 178E would have also pinged and recorded the
info from the plane?
I think we now agree. If I remember correctly, they were trying to
figure out if the plane took the northern or southern route that some
other analysis determined were the choices. While 7 digits of
precision isn't enough to determine the exact speed of the plane, it
should be enough to determine things like whether the plane was
traveling away from or towards the satellite. Anyway, I'll go back to
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.