AardvarkSweeperguy

Discussed here:

Okay, so with this information about the plane...

and here:

Here's a straight-line path between the...

The 0130 loss of radar contact/turn-around point is based on the loss of secondary radar (SSR) response from the plane.

The 0240 loss of radar contact of from primary military radar at RMAF Butterworth which apparently tracked the plane's turn and then lost contact when the plane was over Pulau Perak (in the Strait of Malacca).

An additional comment:

I'm not a pilot (so perhaps one could chime in), but looking at some of the emergency procedures, for an aircraft which has suffered a casualty and lost communications with ATC (which appears to be the case here (or at least a plausible case)) changing altitude and deviating course from an approved air route seem like the correct procedures.

This should alert the ATC and military to attempt to contact the stricken plane and/or intercept it to investigate.

My speculation is that because the military radar operator (and possibly chain of command) did not take the correct action to intercept (i.e. investigate to identify and evaluate, not shoot down) the unknown contact flying over Malaysia which was not on an air route, not squawking, and likely not responding to radio queries, they don't want to admit that the aircraft could have been identified and possibly helped (or at least tracked). But rather, my speculation is because the military at Butterworth did not intercept the plane, but rather just tracked it until it departed Malaysian air space at Pulau Perak, only later did they make the connection (based on the lost contact turn-around point) that the unknown contract they tracked was possibly MH370.

mpc7488

It's quite long, which is why I didn't quote it. Didn't realize it needed a login to view, since I'm always logged into Quora, so my apologies.

He walks through the different types of emergency transponders on board, how they operate and what types of events trigger them automatically, false positives that sometimes occur, and some speculations on what could potentially disable them.

marble

Yeah, I remember there was much confusion around timezones until UTC was adopted. However the first statement was quite clear, but perhaps incorrect?

andrewwm

Or that someone made up a nice rumor about all of this radar tracking by Butterworth, and that the original story of the Malaysian military, that they recorded a possible turnback after losing contact but then no additional radar coverage, is the most likely story.

NandoDave

They've made engine #1 bigger than #2... why?

In my opinion:

EDItraveller

Probably unlikely given that it appears that no sources have picked up any flashes/explosions , no wreckage found, no sightings etc - although it has happened before with the Iran air flight 655 incident (flight not responding to military requests for identification and incorrectly assumed to be hostile and shot down) so, like all other theories , until we know more then you can't rule anything out

uszkanni

Wasn't this image taken at something like 3:45 am and wouldn't the ocean look basically black at that time of day? These look like clouds to me.

andrewwm

Also worthy of note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/wo...ia-jet.html?hp

Note that there is only "confusion" if you believe the now-discredited Berita Hariman story.

The Prime Minister's office says that all they have been told is that radar detected a possible turnback attempt.

The General quoted in the Berita Hariman story flatly denied telling them any such nonsense about tracking across the Malay peninsula out into the straits of Malacca.

The same General also noted that they had some radar evidence of a possible turnback.

Malaysia airlines speculates (probably based on heading at the time of the turnback) that they may have been aiming for Subang.

All of these are very consistent.

Now, you can either believe that the above is the true extent of the knowledge of the Malaysian officials.

Or you can believe that they are lying and that a local gossip rag has an inside source that found explosive evidence of a solid radar track that the Malaysian officials are hiding from the world.

As an aside, shame on the NYTimes for running such a poorly sourced story. I would sadly expect this kind of yellow journalism from CNN, but not from the Times.

exilencfc

I agree with you about the 'wing' but we seem to have the ship going in opposite directions. Oh well, maybe it's actually 3 ships having a get together?

pspercy

.... 0345 in which time zone ?

joejet

As I said when I posted it it looks like 2 ships to me, I guess if digitalgobe still have their satellite pointed that way it would be easy to take another pic. If nothing is now there then it confirms it was a ship or 2 or even 3.

Milestone

Smaller freighter-like ship with big bow wave. Trailing bow waves can be much longer than ship.

I'm really getting annoyed that this tragedy is being turned into the latest internet game and rumors are announced in breathless headlines as Breaking News so a network can grab market share, as they evidently only repeat internet gossip.

cnk

Has anybody been able to verify this directly? If so can we get the coordinates and time?

This could certainly be a ship, but is it possible that it's either a photoshopped hoax or an actual aircraft in flight (with darkness/clouds obscuring it partially)?

tsmith12

Large banner over Beijing mall reminds everyone #MH370 still missing via @dhpierson

sinanju

Crowdsourcing current satellite imagery isn't a bad a idea. A number of false hits would be expected. The problem is folk who want to be known for finding the plane more than they want to find the plane. But, many hands make light work.