Malaysia Airlines MH370

[brandx]

I'M LEANING TOWARD THE ALIEN ABDUCTION ANGLE

the Bombay Triangle??

[jesmu84]

I understand the physical radar distance, but once that plane went AWOL and headed westward, some alarm should have gone off.

Still having trouble believing two ex Seals died of heart attacks on the Alabama a couple weeks before this is not a coincidence.

What would be the connection here?

[rocky_warrior]

What would be the connection here?

Had to look it up myself.  The claim goes that...

Flight 370 received a “highly suspicious” cargo load that had been traced to the Indian Ocean nation Republic of Seychelles, and where it had previously been aboard the US-flagged container ship MV Maersk Alabama...within 24-hours of off-loading this “highly suspicious” cargo load bound for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the two highly-trained US Navy Seals assigned to protect it, Mark Daniel Kennedy, 43, and Jeffrey Keith Reynolds, 44, were found dead under “suspicious circumstances.”

The blog entry is "suspicious" to me 

http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/mh370-mystery-suspicious-cargo-death-of-2-ex-navy-seals-aboard-mv-maersk-alabama/

[keefe]

Had to look it up myself.  The claim goes that...
The blog entry is "suspicious" to me 

http://greatgameindia.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/mh370-mystery-suspicious-cargo-death-of-2-ex-navy-seals-aboard-mv-maersk-alabama/

Wow. What a convoluted read. Funnily enough, I actually know Charlie Dragonette. Both he and his wife worked as merchant analysts for ONI in Suitland, MD. The idea he is some sort of James Bond is laughable. I'm sure Charlie would agree.

[mr.MUskie]

Found it!

[real chili 83]

On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level.  If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.

I've had the pleasure of being in a plane that lost pressure.  See attached photo.

Passengers have about 15 minutes of oxygen once the masks deploy.  Trust me, the pilots go like hell to get the plane down to 10k as fast as they can.

Our pilots did not even make an announcement once they knew they had lost pressure....they just started descending.  In hindsight, it was the right decision.  In the mean time, we....even the flying waitresses....were left to figure it out on our own.

[mu03eng]

Colonel, so this is the question I have around all this.  Why is it even possible for a crew to be able to turn off their transponder?  In what instance would it ever be ok not to be squawking back to the tower?   I guess I don't understand why pilots would need to turn it off on a commercial aircraft.  I get it for military purposes.

????

On the hypoxia thing, if the pilot deliberately took it to an altitude to starve passengers of oxygen, wouldn't the masks deploy and prevent passengers from that problem...or is it a finite limit (I guess the answer is yes) of oxygen which is why normally pilots in that scenario have to descend rather rapidly to get to an acceptable level.  If the pilot didn't, I suppose that would put the passengers in a pinch.

I double checked with a buddy of mine that flies buses over in that neck of the woods and he had some interesting tidbits of info.  He got back to me surprisingly fast though, so might be connected to this somehow  (sorry Dish  )

Maybe Keefe knew this, but I've not spent much time in that area, but apparently the Malaysian civilian radar system does not have altitude azimuth capability (basically they don't have radar for determining the vertical distance).  So the 45k to 19k radar track is unreliable at best, more than likely just aberrant data due to a change in weather/terrain between the radar and the aircraft.

Additionally, and I think Keefe talked about this, is the turn to the WSW came in the gap between signing off with Malaysian ATC and the pick up of Vietnam ATC.  So basically, they turned at precisely the time when Malaysia wouldn't be looking for them any more on their radar and before Vietnam would be concerned about not picking up comm traffic from the flight.

On a separate note, I heard the news mention terrain following/terrain masking again this morning.  This is such a red herring and stupid reporting.  The MC-130H Talon II is specifically designed C-130 for the low level, night time penetration mission and it requires two different radar systems slaved together with the ELINT system and a crew of 4 on night vision goggles (two drivers, a nav, and an EWO) with years of training.  There is no way two civilian pilots in a 777 at night with no equipment are doing anything lower than 1000 AGL, and even that low would not be something that is unlikely to sustain life.

I think there is probably enough evidence that it was a deliberate action but for what purpose is unknown.  There aren't a lot of mile long paved airstrips in that part of the world that are going unused and unnoticed.  I doubt the 777 has a cargo purge function, but if so best guess would be they dumped some sort of valuable cargo on the island, but even that seems insane.

Bombay Triangle it is

[mu03eng]

Oh one other thing, don't buy any of the sharp turn malarky.  It was a standard 20 degree turn, very deliberate like you would have on any domestic flight.  The line of travel was a drastic change but it was done in a very deliberate and standard manner, likely to not arose passenger and radar suspicion.

[DegenerateDish]

The entire thing here is crazy and scary, no matter the outcome. If we ever find out the outcome.

Amazing the technology we have today, and one of the safest/largest commercial airliners just vanishes.

[Coleman]

Occam's razor?

http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3

[Benny B]

In a controlled situation, how long could a 777 maintain buoyancy after being ditched in an open body of water?

[mu03eng]

Occam's razor?

http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3

That is extremely plausible, though I do have three issues with it.  One, and this can be easily explained by coincidence, is the timing of the turn.  It occurred in the soft spot of coverage between ATCs and radars.  Two, the fact that it flew on with the pilots overwhelmed with out any contact from the rest of the crew or passengers.  Surely as it traveled over Malaysia one of the panicked passengers would have attempted a cell phone call.  Three based on the latest reports the data systems were turned off prior to the last communication.  So that timing is critical, if they talked to ATC after ACARS was lost, the theory holds no water.  However, if they reverse the timing of those events, seems a plausible explanation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That is extremely plausible, though I do have three issues with it.  One, and this can be easily explained by coincidence, is the timing of the turn.  It occurred in the soft spot of coverage between ATCs and radars.  Two, the fact that it flew on with the pilots overwhelmed with out any contact from the rest of the crew or passengers.  Surely as it traveled over Malaysia one of the panicked passengers would have attempted a cell phone call.  Three based on the latest reports the data systems were turned off prior to the last communication.  So that timing is critical, if they talked to ATC after ACARS was lost, the theory holds no water.  However, if they reverse the timing of those events, seems a plausible explanation.

I have similar questions, though would cell phones work out over the ocean...what towers are capable of picking up the signal?

[mu03eng]

In a controlled situation, how long could a 777 maintain buoyancy after being ditched in an open body of water?

Depends on the sea state.  I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes   but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.

But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly.  He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight.  Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%

[ChicosBailBonds]

Depends on the sea state.  I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes   but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.

But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly.  He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight.  Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%

It's ok, the plane can sink to the bottom and then Jack Lemon will come, strap on some balloons along with the US Navy to raise the plane up, without any damage to the fuselage.....   

[mu03eng]

I have similar questions, though would cell phones work out over the ocean...what towers are capable of picking up the signal?

That's why the timing is critical, because it wouldn't be over the open ocean.  If the pilots were making for an emergency landing site and were overwhelmed before they got there then the passengers would have been alert to the situation over land where towers would have been in range.

Any scenario where there is smoke enough to overwhelm the flight crew means that would be plenty to alert the flight attendants at a minimum and most likely all of the passengers.  It's complete speculation on my part but I would think at some point there would have been enough signal strength for someone to communicate via text or voice.

[mu03eng]

It's ok, the plane can sink to the bottom and then Jack Lemon will come, strap on some balloons along with the US Navy to raise the plane up, without any damage to the fuselage.....   

Man I loved that movie as a kid....especially the part where Joe Patroni (George Kennedy) was available to help/solve every major 747 airline disaster....at sea, in the snow, in mid-air, and at supersonic speeds....he was like the postal service of mechanics.

[Benny B]

Depends on the sea state.  I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes   but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.

But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly.  He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight.  Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%

I understand the unlikely probability of success, but if there was something nefarious going on, perhaps it was worth taking that chance.

That said, 15 minutes is way too tight of a window for a chase vessel to reach and stabilize a large plane... so there goes my theory of towing it back to port somewhere.  We'd have to be talking high-level military coordination to pull something like this off; almost James Bond-esque.

FWIW - My cousin - active duty USAF pilot who flies in that part of the world - says most probably a pilot suicide or alien abduction.  The only way it could have been hijacked is if one of the pilots was in on the plot.

[Coleman]

I understand the unlikely probability of success, but if there was something nefarious going on, perhaps it was worth taking that chance.

That said, 15 minutes is way too tight of a window for a chase vessel to reach and stabilize a large plane... so there goes my theory of towing it back to port somewhere.  We'd have to be talking high-level military coordination to pull something like this off; almost James Bond-esque.

FWIW - My cousin - active duty USAF pilot who flies in that part of the world - says most probably a pilot suicide or alien abduction.  The only way it could have been hijacked is if one of the pilots was in on the plot.

You know we are clueless when alien abduction is one of the most probable causes 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Depends on the sea state.  I don't think there is an official float time table Boeing publishes   but it would probably be no more than 15 minutes assuming the plane was intentionally ditched and no significant damage was done to the aircraft on impact.

But just cause Sully did it once, doesn't mean it can be done repeatedly.  He did it on a river(very small sea state) in broad daylight.  Just doesn't seem feasible to count on an open ocean ditching with a probability of success of less than 5%

I did not see the interview, but my mom said they interviewed Sully over the weekend.  He basically stated your thoughts.  He said because it was dark and the ocean is far more unstable than a river that a safe water landing would not have a good chance of success.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I have similar questions, though would cell phones work out over the ocean...what towers are capable of picking up the signal?

could a jammer of some sort have been used to block cell signals?

[mu03eng]

I understand the unlikely probability of success, but if there was something nefarious going on, perhaps it was worth taking that chance.

That said, 15 minutes is way too tight of a window for a chase vessel to reach and stabilize a large plane... so there goes my theory of towing it back to port somewhere.  We'd have to be talking high-level military coordination to pull something like this off; almost James Bond-esque.

FWIW - My cousin - active duty USAF pilot who flies in that part of the world - says most probably a pilot suicide or alien abduction.  The only way it could have been hijacked is if one of the pilots was in on the plot.

As my father would say, that dog just ain't gonna hunt.  Once that plane is in the water it's going to the bottom...there is no way to make that towable or even lift it out of the water short of some sort of Glomar Explorer monstrosity.  Good luck hiding that.

[Spotcheck Billy]

You know we are clueless when alien abduction is one of the most probable causes 

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089

[mu03eng]

could a jammer of some sort have been used to block cell signals?

Could have been used, but now we are starting to get into some esoteric spy stuff that after a 12 day investigation would have shown up in financial records or ferreted out in some communications.

I agree with Occum's Razor here, simplest is the most likely.  Either there was a fire and some weird circumstances went on(random chance is a thing all the time in aviation, look up the term cascading failure) or the pilots intentionally hijacked the flight to do something with the plane, cargo, and/or passengers which they either pulled off or the whole mess is laying at the bottom of the IO

[keefe]

I double checked with a buddy of mine that flies buses over in that neck of the woods and he had some interesting tidbits of info.  He got back to me surprisingly fast though, so might be connected to this somehow  (sorry Dish  )

Maybe Keefe knew this, but I've not spent much time in that area, but apparently the Malaysian civilian radar system does not have altitude azimuth capability (basically they don't have radar for determining the vertical distance).  So the 45k to 19k radar track is unreliable at best, more than likely just aberrant data due to a change in weather/terrain between the radar and the aircraft.

Additionally, and I think Keefe talked about this, is the turn to the WSW came in the gap between signing off with Malaysian ATC and the pick up of Vietnam ATC.  So basically, they turned at precisely the time when Malaysia wouldn't be looking for them any more on their radar and before Vietnam would be concerned about not picking up comm traffic from the flight.

On a separate note, I heard the news mention terrain following/terrain masking again this morning.  This is such a red herring and stupid reporting.  The MC-130H Talon II is specifically designed C-130 for the low level, night time penetration mission and it requires two different radar systems slaved together with the ELINT system and a crew of 4 on night vision goggles (two drivers, a nav, and an EWO) with years of training.  There is no way two civilian pilots in a 777 at night with no equipment are doing anything lower than 1000 AGL, and even that low would not be something that is unlikely to sustain life.

I think there is probably enough evidence that it was a deliberate action but for what purpose is unknown.  There aren't a lot of mile long paved airstrips in that part of the world that are going unused and unnoticed.  I doubt the 777 has a cargo purge function, but if so best guess would be they dumped some sort of valuable cargo on the island, but even that seems insane.


Bombay Triangle it is

Your buddy is correct that in ASEAN only Singapore has a civilian 3D phased array radar system that can provide height finding (and even then, it is really for the SAF air defence system.) But what your friend might not be aware of is the RMAF inherited the base at Butterworth near Penang from the RAAF. (In fact, the RAAF still fly C 130s out of there for, ironically, SAR missions.) And Butterworth has an A Band air search radar system with HF capability.

The problem in this case is that the Butterworth radar system faces 270 and the filed flight path and unusual maneuvers for this flight occurred on the 045 from Butterworth. So Butterworth would not have detected the flight until it passed overhead but as it went outbound that radar should have had skin on the 777 for the next 250 NM.

Butterworth also uses the VERA passive ESM system as part of its national IADS. VERA provides typical tracking data (range, altitude, course, speed) but requires a target to be rotating, radiating, or squawking so a passive ESM system would not have seen a bird in EMCON.

As you mention, it does not appear there was ever an ATC hand off from KL to Saigon Center. In order for Saigon ATC to accept the flight they need positive radar skin but this never happened. So the only ATC for this flight was KL. So the real question is why didn't KL Center escalate once it lost contact with this aircraft? 

As for terrain masking - this 777 didn't have the gear and the 2 drivers had never been tactical in their lives. The idea of a fully loaded 777 yanking and banking 30' off the deck is ridiculous. I have flown that low in an A 10 and it is a sphincter puckering experience that makes Space Mountain seem like a kiddie ride. An A 10 has the responsiveness, agility and on-board systems that allow it to fly tactical low levels; a 777 does not. And for a chunk of steel that large to avoid radar tracking it would need to be down in the dirt like an A 10. I guarantee those 2 sticks would have dropped a wing or a tail in the drink flying that low - the sink rate alone would have ensured the slightest error brought the flight to a very bad end.

As I have said before, the talking heads on tv keep trotting out various theories that are uninformed, silly, or preposterous. The real questions need to be asked of the Malaysian authorities as they know more than they are telling. Having lived in SE Asia I will say that Malaysian Air Systems is considered a national asset and a lot of this is the Kingdom Checking Six. Reporters in Malaysia who wrote bad things about the Proton were invited to explain themselves by the government. Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are very prickly about negative news and they go to great lengths to ensure bad news simply does not happen.