Last edit by: JDiver
PLEASE READ FIRST: WELCOME and MODERATOR NOTE
Welcome to the MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
Welcome to the MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk!
Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that covers the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel.
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
All travelers are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum: conversing about airlines and their programs, airports, destinations, dining and how to make the most of your miles and points, or visit our Information Desk to start.
Respect our Diversity - link to this guideline
FlyerTalk members come from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We are as diverse in our makeup as we are alike in our passion for frequent flyer programs. Because we all bring a unique perspective to the forum, our collective experience is broadened, and we gain new insights.
Our diversity demands that we respect each other. Due to the inherent constraints of the Internet, humor, sarcasm, language and slang can be easily misinterpreted - especially when crossing cultural boundaries.
When posting a message, pay extra care to how it might be interpreted. And when you come across a post that offends you, read it with an eye toward giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue with a post, please contact the member privately or contact a moderator (click on the button). Do not make a situation worse by publicly responding.
FlyerTalk members come from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We are as diverse in our makeup as we are alike in our passion for frequent flyer programs. Because we all bring a unique perspective to the forum, our collective experience is broadened, and we gain new insights.
Our diversity demands that we respect each other. Due to the inherent constraints of the Internet, humor, sarcasm, language and slang can be easily misinterpreted - especially when crossing cultural boundaries.
When posting a message, pay extra care to how it might be interpreted. And when you come across a post that offends you, read it with an eye toward giving the poster the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue with a post, please contact the member privately or contact a moderator (click on the button). Do not make a situation worse by publicly responding.
In order to a) keep the original thread focused on confirmed news and known facts, and b) allow folks a place to discuss their ideas about what might have happened, the MH370 moderators and Community Director have decided to open this thread.
Here are the expectations:
1. The normal FT TOS apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions on-thread). And please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.
2. You are expected respect our diversity , and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, orientation, etc." Do not cite, copy, or report on such.
3. Please do continue to be attentive to the sensibilities of the families of those on the flight. Think about if you were them what you would and would not want to see posted. Speculation about what happened is permissible; please, though, do not indulge in inflammatory or overly-lurid descriptions that could well be hurtful.
4. Overly / extravagantly exaggerative posts such as conspiracy theories, posts beyond the realm of science and known facts, etc. as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously, information that has been posted in the News thread wiki or FAQ, may be deleted. E.g. the aircraft was vaporized.
In terms of housekeeping, posts may get moved from the "news" thread if and as needed, and posts that do not conform to these simple expectations, above, will be deleted.
Also note: this wiki is locked; changes can only be made by moderators.
Thank you.
Your MH370 Moderation Team
aBroadAbroad; cblaisd; JDiver; l'etoile; NewbieRunner; oliver2002; Prospero
and Community Director
SanDiego1K
MH370 Discussion and Speculation Thread
#1531
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
I don't see the name Duncan Steel in the forum search, has anyone read this before?
The Inmarsat-3F1 Doppler Data Do Not Exclude a Northerly Flight Path for MH370
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/507
"I assert here that the assertion by Inmarsat is wrong. I do not assert that the aircraft definitely took a northerly route. However, I present evidence hereunder that a northerly route cannot be excluded on the basis of the satellite data, and that a northerly track remains viable in terms of what the satellite data can tell us."
Prof. Duncan Steel.
The Inmarsat-3F1 Doppler Data Do Not Exclude a Northerly Flight Path for MH370
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/507
"I assert here that the assertion by Inmarsat is wrong. I do not assert that the aircraft definitely took a northerly route. However, I present evidence hereunder that a northerly route cannot be excluded on the basis of the satellite data, and that a northerly track remains viable in terms of what the satellite data can tell us."
Prof. Duncan Steel.
#1532
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: YVR
Programs: AC E50K, NEXUS
Posts: 645
Yes, the very same day I heard about the shift.
I'm sure 'they' must have known that debris does not drift east, or south east. So I had to wonder just what info they had received in order to make such a seemingly disastrous shift.
One day we read about a satellite shot showing 300? floating objects, then another account of a single object some 23m long? These were never confirmed.
Then, in the blink of an eye, the whole search area shifted N/E? and since that day they have found nothing!
I have to wonder if there has been some over-analysis going on here, the result of which is that they are now looking in the totally wrong area.
I'm sure 'they' must have known that debris does not drift east, or south east. So I had to wonder just what info they had received in order to make such a seemingly disastrous shift.
One day we read about a satellite shot showing 300? floating objects, then another account of a single object some 23m long? These were never confirmed.
Then, in the blink of an eye, the whole search area shifted N/E? and since that day they have found nothing!
I have to wonder if there has been some over-analysis going on here, the result of which is that they are now looking in the totally wrong area.
#1533
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 80
I questioned the shift as well. The explanation was that if the aircraft was flying faster, it would have run out of fuel earlier. However, they know how long it was airborne, at least as long as the last handshaking messages were exchanged with Inmarsat. Distance = speed x time. If time is constant (known from the timing of the handshaking messages) and speed is increased, distance is increased, not decreased. There must be more to it that's not being released, because I can't believe Boeing and others haven't reviewed the analysis.
Whatever mysteries there may be about this whole thing, the search management isn't one of them. It's safe to say that the search area is being directed by experts who have way more information about currents and winds and drift and all that than anyone on here has, and way more knowledge about how to use that information - so it's useless to try to second-guess them.
Last edited by cblaisd; Apr 3, 2014 at 9:53 pm Reason: merged poster's two consecutive posts
#1534
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SYD
Programs: UA PG 1MM - AccorPlus Platinum
Posts: 321
Here is a map showing the ocean currents in the area:
The aircraft went down 26 days ago. I'm not sure what the exact drift speed is, but assuming 2 knots, the total drift over 26 days is 1248 nautical miles.
Originally, the crash location was assumed to be south west of where they are currently searching. Then it was decided that the aircraft must have gone down north east of the original location, in the area where they are currently searching. If the assumed crash location is correct, any surface wreckage will be well north of where they are currently searching, so why aren't they searching further north?
The aircraft went down 26 days ago. I'm not sure what the exact drift speed is, but assuming 2 knots, the total drift over 26 days is 1248 nautical miles.
Originally, the crash location was assumed to be south west of where they are currently searching. Then it was decided that the aircraft must have gone down north east of the original location, in the area where they are currently searching. If the assumed crash location is correct, any surface wreckage will be well north of where they are currently searching, so why aren't they searching further north?
#1535
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
I don't see the name Duncan Steel in the forum search, has anyone read this before?
The Inmarsat-3F1 Doppler Data Do Not Exclude a Northerly Flight Path for MH370
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/507
"I assert here that the assertion by Inmarsat is wrong. I do not assert that the aircraft definitely took a northerly route. However, I present evidence hereunder that a northerly route cannot be excluded on the basis of the satellite data, and that a northerly track remains viable in terms of what the satellite data can tell us."
Prof. Duncan Steel.
The Inmarsat-3F1 Doppler Data Do Not Exclude a Northerly Flight Path for MH370
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/507
"I assert here that the assertion by Inmarsat is wrong. I do not assert that the aircraft definitely took a northerly route. However, I present evidence hereunder that a northerly route cannot be excluded on the basis of the satellite data, and that a northerly track remains viable in terms of what the satellite data can tell us."
Prof. Duncan Steel.
They haven't released more data because they are not crowdsourcing (though I do suspect they had rather more people / agencies involved than those claimed).
If they could narrow down the search area, they would certainly love to deploy SAR resources more effectively. M@rco Polo's currents map (with its misspellings - BBC needs an editor) is illustrative and gives a pretty good indication every day any debris is scattering more widely and will present more challenges (if found) to backtrack to a possible impact location. Inject much of it into the Indian Ocean Gyre and who knows when and where a piece or bit of flotsam might come ashore.
#1536
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: BNE
Posts: 87
Sorry mate but IIRC according to our resident 777 Jet Jockey it may well not have had one. They were only fitted after a certain date and this airframe was on the cusp. Yes I know, madness not to be required on all heavies, just madness.
#1537
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2
Sorry if I missed this - I have read/scanned the whole thread but don't remember this being mentioned before.
Much has been made about the loss of communication at the exact point of handoff and while it could seem suspicious to some, it is not without precedent.
In April 2013:
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/2330/...ss-commhttp://
Much has been made about the loss of communication at the exact point of handoff and while it could seem suspicious to some, it is not without precedent.
In April 2013:
An Air France Boeing 777-200, registration F-GSPC performing flight AF-562 from Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) to Beirut (Lebanon), had just reached cruise level 370 about 70nm northwest of Zurich (Switzerland), still in French airspace and about to be handed off to Germany, when the crew set the transponder code for loss of communication. About 5 minutes later the aircraft turned around and returned to Paris for a safe landing on Charles de Gaulle's runway 26R still squawking loss comm about 55 minutes later.
#1538
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1
Malmsey pointed out an interesting loss of communications incident in AF-562, April 15, 2013. But it's not quite the same - the transponder was working, "squawking loss comm", and an anonymous source in the following web page says that, whatever passengers were told, only two of the three VHF radios had failed:
http://avherald.com/h?article=460cef66
http://avherald.com/h?article=460cef66
"Short-circuit on MCP push to talk switch caused a loss of 2 of the 3 VHFs. No beverage spill involved.
One VHF was operational when decision was made to return to base, as dispatch with a single VHF for return flight was not possible."
One VHF was operational when decision was made to return to base, as dispatch with a single VHF for return flight was not possible."
#1539
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2
That’s true, it wasn’t exactly the same kind of incident; I just wanted to highlight that even though it seems a large coincidence that something could go wrong at exactly the handoff point, it has happened before.
Additionally, there were 6 incidents in 2013 and 1 in 2014 wherein crews of 777-200s reported the smell of smoke, 3 in the cockpit, and one of which was so bad that the commander instructed the FO (active pilot) to don the O2 mask while he himself did not, so as not to hamper radio transmissions. In 3 of those cases, emergency services found no trace of fire, heat or smoke. In another, crew requested emergency services to carefully inspect the nose wheels, but nothing abnormal was found.
In August 2012, a 777-200 (UA-861) returned to the departure airport after suffering a partial loss of communication equipment at FL350.
On Apr 13 2013, KL-809 (another 777-200) reported failure of their navigation systems at FL240, and returned to KL.
On Feb 17, 2013, AA-907 “received a multitude of system failure messages including intermittent failure messages regarding the left hand electrical DC bus and the forward outflow valve” at FL350. They descended to FL280, then FL200, then back to FL220. The aircraft did not depressurize on arrival until the systems were reset.
On Feb. 3, 2013, the FO of BA-67 was incapacitated due to fumes on the flight deck at FL380. Both he and the captain donned O2 masks. 25 minutes later, the FO became nauseated.
On Jan 28, 2013, UA-935, climbing out of London, produced a loud bang from one of the forward doors. A pax reported obvious problem with cabin pressurization but the captain announced initially they’d continue the flight, deciding after about 3 hours to return to London due to said cabin pressurization trouble.
Perhaps most interestingly, on Dec 31, 2013, PK-351 from Peshawar to Karachi diverted to Sialkot, “completely off track and after overflying Islamabad, for unknown reasons.” Pakistani media reported problems with the fuel supply. Radar data showed the aircraft set course towards Sialkot immediately after departure from Peshawar. (One wonders why they didn’t just return to Peshawar…)
This list doesn’t even include incidents such as engine failures or confirmed cargo fires.
The list of 777-200 incidents can be found at http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/...boeing-777-200.
The point is, stuff happens, and sometimes more than one problem happens at or around the same time. I dislike thinking the Captain or FO might have intentionally caused the loss of MH370. That may turn out to be the case, but it's very low on my list of possibilities.
Additionally, there were 6 incidents in 2013 and 1 in 2014 wherein crews of 777-200s reported the smell of smoke, 3 in the cockpit, and one of which was so bad that the commander instructed the FO (active pilot) to don the O2 mask while he himself did not, so as not to hamper radio transmissions. In 3 of those cases, emergency services found no trace of fire, heat or smoke. In another, crew requested emergency services to carefully inspect the nose wheels, but nothing abnormal was found.
In August 2012, a 777-200 (UA-861) returned to the departure airport after suffering a partial loss of communication equipment at FL350.
On Apr 13 2013, KL-809 (another 777-200) reported failure of their navigation systems at FL240, and returned to KL.
On Feb 17, 2013, AA-907 “received a multitude of system failure messages including intermittent failure messages regarding the left hand electrical DC bus and the forward outflow valve” at FL350. They descended to FL280, then FL200, then back to FL220. The aircraft did not depressurize on arrival until the systems were reset.
On Feb. 3, 2013, the FO of BA-67 was incapacitated due to fumes on the flight deck at FL380. Both he and the captain donned O2 masks. 25 minutes later, the FO became nauseated.
On Jan 28, 2013, UA-935, climbing out of London, produced a loud bang from one of the forward doors. A pax reported obvious problem with cabin pressurization but the captain announced initially they’d continue the flight, deciding after about 3 hours to return to London due to said cabin pressurization trouble.
Perhaps most interestingly, on Dec 31, 2013, PK-351 from Peshawar to Karachi diverted to Sialkot, “completely off track and after overflying Islamabad, for unknown reasons.” Pakistani media reported problems with the fuel supply. Radar data showed the aircraft set course towards Sialkot immediately after departure from Peshawar. (One wonders why they didn’t just return to Peshawar…)
This list doesn’t even include incidents such as engine failures or confirmed cargo fires.
The list of 777-200 incidents can be found at http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/...boeing-777-200.
The point is, stuff happens, and sometimes more than one problem happens at or around the same time. I dislike thinking the Captain or FO might have intentionally caused the loss of MH370. That may turn out to be the case, but it's very low on my list of possibilities.
#1540
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,721
That’s true, it wasn’t exactly the same kind of incident; I just wanted to highlight that even though it seems a large coincidence that something could go wrong at exactly the handoff point, it has happened before.
Additionally, there were 6 incidents in 2013 and 1 in 2014 wherein crews of 777-200s reported the smell of smoke, 3 in the cockpit, and one of which was so bad that the commander instructed the FO (active pilot) to don the O2 mask while he himself did not, so as not to hamper radio transmissions. In 3 of those cases, emergency services found no trace of fire, heat or smoke. In another, crew requested emergency services to carefully inspect the nose wheels, but nothing abnormal was found.
In August 2012, a 777-200 (UA-861) returned to the departure airport after suffering a partial loss of communication equipment at FL350.
On Apr 13 2013, KL-809 (another 777-200) reported failure of their navigation systems at FL240, and returned to KL.
On Feb 17, 2013, AA-907 “received a multitude of system failure messages including intermittent failure messages regarding the left hand electrical DC bus and the forward outflow valve” at FL350. They descended to FL280, then FL200, then back to FL220. The aircraft did not depressurize on arrival until the systems were reset.
On Feb. 3, 2013, the FO of BA-67 was incapacitated due to fumes on the flight deck at FL380. Both he and the captain donned O2 masks. 25 minutes later, the FO became nauseated.
On Jan 28, 2013, UA-935, climbing out of London, produced a loud bang from one of the forward doors. A pax reported obvious problem with cabin pressurization but the captain announced initially they’d continue the flight, deciding after about 3 hours to return to London due to said cabin pressurization trouble.
Perhaps most interestingly, on Dec 31, 2013, PK-351 from Peshawar to Karachi diverted to Sialkot, “completely off track and after overflying Islamabad, for unknown reasons.” Pakistani media reported problems with the fuel supply. Radar data showed the aircraft set course towards Sialkot immediately after departure from Peshawar. (One wonders why they didn’t just return to Peshawar…)
This list doesn’t even include incidents such as engine failures or confirmed cargo fires.
The list of 777-200 incidents can be found at http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/...boeing-777-200.
The point is, stuff happens, and sometimes more than one problem happens at or around the same time. I dislike thinking the Captain or FO might have intentionally caused the loss of MH370. That may turn out to be the case, but it's very low on my list of possibilities.
Additionally, there were 6 incidents in 2013 and 1 in 2014 wherein crews of 777-200s reported the smell of smoke, 3 in the cockpit, and one of which was so bad that the commander instructed the FO (active pilot) to don the O2 mask while he himself did not, so as not to hamper radio transmissions. In 3 of those cases, emergency services found no trace of fire, heat or smoke. In another, crew requested emergency services to carefully inspect the nose wheels, but nothing abnormal was found.
In August 2012, a 777-200 (UA-861) returned to the departure airport after suffering a partial loss of communication equipment at FL350.
On Apr 13 2013, KL-809 (another 777-200) reported failure of their navigation systems at FL240, and returned to KL.
On Feb 17, 2013, AA-907 “received a multitude of system failure messages including intermittent failure messages regarding the left hand electrical DC bus and the forward outflow valve” at FL350. They descended to FL280, then FL200, then back to FL220. The aircraft did not depressurize on arrival until the systems were reset.
On Feb. 3, 2013, the FO of BA-67 was incapacitated due to fumes on the flight deck at FL380. Both he and the captain donned O2 masks. 25 minutes later, the FO became nauseated.
On Jan 28, 2013, UA-935, climbing out of London, produced a loud bang from one of the forward doors. A pax reported obvious problem with cabin pressurization but the captain announced initially they’d continue the flight, deciding after about 3 hours to return to London due to said cabin pressurization trouble.
Perhaps most interestingly, on Dec 31, 2013, PK-351 from Peshawar to Karachi diverted to Sialkot, “completely off track and after overflying Islamabad, for unknown reasons.” Pakistani media reported problems with the fuel supply. Radar data showed the aircraft set course towards Sialkot immediately after departure from Peshawar. (One wonders why they didn’t just return to Peshawar…)
This list doesn’t even include incidents such as engine failures or confirmed cargo fires.
The list of 777-200 incidents can be found at http://www.aeroinside.com/incidents/...boeing-777-200.
The point is, stuff happens, and sometimes more than one problem happens at or around the same time. I dislike thinking the Captain or FO might have intentionally caused the loss of MH370. That may turn out to be the case, but it's very low on my list of possibilities.
If there was an emergency then in all likelihood the plane would have diverted to the nearest airport or at least radio'd the issue - there was plenty of time given the altitude. If the emergency was so massive then the plane would have gone down near the area where communication was lost.
The simplest solution is also the one that makes the most sense and is supported by facts and logic - intentional human action diverted the plane, not some theoretical mechanical event that as of today has no evidence to support.
#1541
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,748
This has no relevance. Even major fire or smoke significant to require O2 masks would not magically burn up transponder and tracking but avoid burning other systems such that plane could fly another 5-6 hour on its own (a hypothesis that is now scientifically supported by satellite data).
Anyone who has tinkered with electrical/electronic equipment as a hobby would have encountered more than a few failure scenarios of burnt electronics without visible smoke or fire. It is not a binary between no failure of electronics and cabin filling with smoke or fire and making it unflyable. Overheating, sparking, shorting, chaffing can all partially disable avionics without necessarily disabling manual flight controls. There is redundancy built into a lot of this to prevent it but if you follow the FAA ADs, you will see that it is never that perfect, maintenance practices can compromise the design. Luckily most of them are caught before it results in something catastrophic.
The simplest solution is also the one that makes the most sense and is supported by facts and logic - intentional human action diverted the plane, not some theoretical mechanical event that as of today has no evidence to support.
The above will be Boeing's default position but what may happen in court with presented evidence may be something quite different. We just have to wait and see.
Last edited by venk; Apr 4, 2014 at 7:46 pm Reason: Added an example of logical fallacy
#1542
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
And on the subject of denial, I have to wonder if the Malaysian authorities have been quite open to the investigators on why & how they just happened to let an unidentified aircraft fly back over the Malaysian peninsula unhindered.
And, what does Indonesia know?
Amen to that!
***
Just reported in the media that the device to detect the 'ping' is being towed at a depth of 3000ft.
Isn't the average depth about 13,000ft?
***
HMS Tireless operates at a depth of 400m, to a maximum depth of 600m.
http://ondastreet.wordpress.com/2014...-locate-mh370/
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0011.html
And, what does Indonesia know?
***
Just reported in the media that the device to detect the 'ping' is being towed at a depth of 3000ft.
Isn't the average depth about 13,000ft?
***
HMS Tireless operates at a depth of 400m, to a maximum depth of 600m.
http://ondastreet.wordpress.com/2014...-locate-mh370/
http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0011.html
Last edited by cblaisd; Apr 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm Reason: Removed response to now-removed posts that were OMNI/PR political characterization/argumentation
#1543
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA1MM*GL/1K, AA, BnVy PlatL, HH Silver,
Posts: 681
Whatever mysteries there may be about this whole thing, the search management isn't one of them. It's safe to say that the search area is being directed by experts who have way more information about currents and winds and drift and all that than anyone on here has, and way more knowledge about how to use that information - so it's useless to try to second-guess them.
#1544
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,203
This article explains.
#1545
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 44
Chinese News Agency reports a 37.5KHZ 'ping' located by their ship.
The world holds its breath...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...h-for-airliner
The world holds its breath...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...h-for-airliner
Last edited by cblaisd; Apr 5, 2014 at 7:00 am Reason: Added link - ALL, if you're going to cite/characterize a news story, add the link