Thread: Contact lost with Malaysia Plane.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Didn't they take the man who said he'd seen a "wreckage with human remains" along with them to point at it for them?

It's the Philippines, finger-pointing doesn't carry the same legal weight as in Thailand.

Obvious, innit

Originally Posted by david44

Interesting,strange its not on the mainstream news yet?

you can generally judge the quaility of a mainstream news source by the degree that live to have assurance that there is some truth behind what they print beyond just roomers

Originally Posted by hazz

you can generally judge the quaility of a mainstream news source by the degree that live to have assurance that there is some truth behind what they print beyond just roomers

No finger pointing just

An interesting read.

Search for Malaysia Flight 370 - Researchers Look for Missing Malaysia Plane

The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB), which released the images as part of a report on the search last month, says it’s examined the images and believes the sonar records are "consistent with the surrounding geological formations".

But US firm Williamson & Associates, which is involved in deep sea searches, said the images bore a striking similarity to the underwater debris field an Air France Flight plane which crashed in 2009.

Williamson & Associate’s Special Projects Manager Rob McCallum told SBS the images had “all the hallmarks” of a debris field.

“It’s the right shape, the right size and in the right location, within a search area for a major airliner,”

He urged the search team to revisit the site, saying doing so would not cost a lot of money or take a lot of time.

“For someone to look at this and say this isn’t a target of interest, means either they have information they’re not sharing, or they’ve made a mistake. And on a search of this size and complexity, you can’t afford to make mistakes.”

The ATSB said in a written response to Reuters that geophysicists, sonar data specialists and its quality assurance team were satisfied that the structures in the sonar records were "consistent with the surrounding geological formations".

"Based on analysis of all of the data, there are no indications that there is anything possessing the characteristics of an aircraft debris field," it said.

Dutch company Fugro NV, the firm heading the search for the missing plane, did not respond to requests for comment.

The ATSB said in a September 23 update, the ship Fugro Discovery would resurvey "several" sites identified by sonar contact as being of possible interest in the 120,000 sq km search area.

Other experts say the ATSB could have instead used an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) to resurvey the sites. An AUV provides the most accurate search readings but cannot be deployed in rough winter weather.

Williamson & Associates was one of the rejected bidders for the contract to search for MH370.

McCallum said the firm expected to “cop a bit of flack” for speaking out, but said it couldn’t just sit back and say nothing.

“You can’t have a question mark this large hanging over imagery like that. It needs to be investigated,” he said.

A piece of the plane found washed up on the French island of Reunion in July this year provided the first direct evidence that the plane had crashed into the sea, in one of the world’s most baffling aviation mysteries.

No further trace has been found.

Sonar images in MH370 search ?bear all the hallmarks of a debris field? | SBS News

Captain claims to have pinpointed MH370 crash site



There is a strong belief in the aviation industry that searchers scouring the southern Indian Ocean for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 may find the Boeing 777 in the next four weeks.


Last week, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s contracted survey ship Fugro Discovery resumed the deep-sea search in a location identified 11 months ago by a Boeing 777 check captain as the final resting place of MH370.
Respected industry magazine Flightglobal has published a mathematical and geometric calculation by Capt. Simon Hardy, also a mathematician, which indicated where MH370 came down.
Capt. Hardy puts it at S39 22’ 46” E087 6’ 20”.
MH370, with 239 people aboard, disappeared on March 8 last year on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The only trace so far is a small wing flap that washed up on Reunion Island this year.


Flightglobal’s consulting editor David Learmount said that “for those seeking a reason to be optimistic following a discouraging 20 months of searching the ocean without a result, there is definite cause for renewed hope this time”.
“The impressive fact about Hardy’s mathematics is that, despite hundreds of thousands of hits on the article containing his calculations, nobody has been able to blow a hole in them,” he said.
“By December 3, Fugro Discovery expects to have completed the search of the area containing, according to Hardy’s calculations, the wreck of MH370.”


"Captain Hardy says he says he is excited about the next month's search, having invested more than a year of mental and emotional energy into working out where MH370 flew, and why. He wants it found," said Mr Learmount.
The location identified by Capt. Hardy is just outside the initial search area of 60,000sqkm. That area of interest was widened in April to 120,000sqkm.
Capt. Hardy’s “location” is at the extreme edge of the range of MH370, given its fuel and passenger/cargo load.
Search ships have covered more than 70,000sqkm, and with the weather improving, the pace of the search is expected to pick up.


https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...ation-experts/

It's an interesting article, but I'm not sure this is really true:

“The impressive fact about Hardy’s mathematics is that, despite hundreds of thousands of hits on the article containing his calculations, nobody has been able to blow a hole in them,” he said.

It's impossible for his calculations to be proved or disproved when there are so many unknowns; flap configuration, fuel consumption, prevailing winds, etc.

When will these new allocations enter into force?

(mind you, such allocations constitute changes to international treaties, normally it will take time before they enter into force)

(good news though, it is VERY rare that ITU and WRC respond as quick as this)

Good stuff but only if it cannot be turned off.

MH370 search narrowed to 'hot-spot' as analysis finds plane did not conduct controlled landing
By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney7:04AM GMT 03 Dec 2015

Australia has released new analysis of the missing MH370 flight, identifying a top-priority search in the southern Indian Ocean and indicating the Boeing 777 did not conduct a controlled landing.



Authorities conducting the hunt for the missing MH370 aircraft have narrowed the search area to a “hot spot” in the southern Indian Ocean but insisted they are looking in the right place.

Drawing on the work of eighteenth century British statistician Thomas Bayes, experts at Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Group identified a high-priority zone covering 20 nautical miles on each side of the Malaysia Airlines plane’s presumed “arc” - or route – after it disappeared. The Boeing 777, carrying 239 passengers and crew, went missing on March 8 last year during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The new analysis examined the flight’s final moments and found that the plane was unlikely to have conducted a controlled landing, concluding the aircraft experienced “engine flame-outs” and its last satellite communication was due to a power failure. The flame-outs, or engine shutdowns, were caused by loss of fuel.
Warren Truss, Australia’s deputy prime minister, said he was “increasingly confident” that the plane was in the current search area. The painstaking underwater hunt, due to be completed by June 2016, has so far examined 29,000 square miles of 46,000 square mile zone.
"There's around 44,000 square kilometres [17,000 square miles] yet to be searched in this new priority area, and we're optimistic and hopeful that that search will result in us locating the aircraft," Mr Truss said.
The only trace of the plane since it disappeared was a flaperon, part of the wing, which washed up on Reunion Island in July, about 2,500 miles west of the search zone.

The new report released by the safety bureau said examination of drift buoys which also washed up on the island indicated the debris was consistent with the MH370 search area. The drift analysis indicated “a slightly lower likelihood” that the flaperon originated from the area of the search zone which has now been identified as a hot-spot. But the report said the hot spot was based on satellite data, which was a more accurate guide than the drift analysis.
Three ships have been conducting the search and a fourth Chinese vessel is due to join in the coming months. The search has cost about £90 million.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is planning to search some areas that have already been examined to check several features of interest that have been detected.
"We need to go back and be absolutely certain that they are in fact just geographical features or something else and to positively rule them out," Mr Truss said.

MH370 search narrowed to 'hot-spot' as analysis finds plane did not conduct controlled landing - Telegraph

They need to head more north, you know around Diego Garcia. Plenty of hot spots there.

Originally Posted by OhOh

They need to head more north, you know around Diego Garcia. Plenty of hot spots there.

Hearing voices again?

^ Maybe ENT's?...

European Commission adopts new rules for improved aircraft tracking

17 December 2015

The European Commission has adopted new aircraft tracking rules to improve air safety following the accident of Air France flight AF447 and the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.

The new rules require aircraft to include tracking systems, underwater location devices and flight recorders, which will improve the tracking and location of an aircraft in distress anywhere in the world.

Companies operating passenger airplanes of more than 27t and carrying more than 19 passengers, as well as cargo aircraft of more than 45.5t must have an aircraft tracking system to have operational control over the flight.

The rules also specify that newly manufactured large aeroplanes must be equipped 'with robust and automatic means' to accurately locate the end point of a flight following an accident in which the aeroplane is severely damaged.

This will prevent the disappearance of an aeroplane when all communications and its track are lost abruptly, the commission said.

EU transport commissioner Violeta Bulc said: "For the general public, it is not understandable that aircraft are not permanently tracked wherever they fly.

"The rules we adopted today aim to address this deficiency and to prevent the reoccurrence of the disappearances of flights AF447 and MH370."

The technology of flight recorders will be improved, and the recording length of cockpit voice recorders (CVR) will be extended from the current two hours to 25 hours.

Protection of CVR recordings will also be strengthened during their maintenance.

In addition, location devices with an extended transmission time will be added to flight recorders to help locate a missing plane.

The commission recently adopted a new aviation strategy to boost aviation sector competitiveness in Europe following competition from other airlines globally.

In the interest of safety, Malaysia Airlines currently operates a long route to Europe, which combined with temporary unseasonably strong head winds, is limiting the airlines’ ability to carry baggage in cargo.

This longer flight path consumes more jet fuel and for safety reasons, Malaysia Airlines has had to impose temporary limitation on checked in baggage allowance. From tonight, 5 January 2016 (until further notice), the airline will only be able to accommodate cabin baggage of up to 7kg – one piece totalling 7kg per Economy Class passengers and two pieces totalling 14kg (up to 7kg per piece) for Business/First Class passengers. Passengers who wish to check in their luggage will be able to do so, however their baggage will only arrive later.

Not an expert, but i would expect the difference to be between slowly gliding down into the sea, and diving into the sea. the difference would be the distance travelled after the last ping was received.

Originally Posted by david44

Can an avaition expert explain why a controlled landing makes any difference to the search on water?

I'm misunderstanding something whether at full throttle ir pancake once waterlogged it would sink, bits would emerge, plastic flotsam ?

Am I missing something?If it was not hijack suicide mission but some aircraft fault it is in everyone's interest to remedy the fault for future flyers.

If the fuselage landed intact, then the things that would normally separate and float like seats, bags and doors are still inside the plane.

............A Very good read..............

New Interesting thoughts About MH370 Disappearance

This article is from the January 9 issue of The Australian Digital Edition.

Australia's MH370 search has ignored evidence of someone at the controls.

Twenty-two months ago, on March 8, 2014, at 1am, an ultramodern Boeing
777 of Malaysia Airlines suddenly and without warning disappeared from
radar over the South China Sea enroute from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Flight MH370 had 239 people on board and the pilot in command was captain
Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a highly respected and very experienced aviator.

The B777 is state of the art; probably the safest aircraft flying today. I know -
I have many thousands of hours as captain on B777. How then could it
disappear?

Many theories surfaced but all of these can be explained away by the superb
protection devices and warning systems of the B777. Emergencies such as
engine fire or explosive decompression are easily handled by well-trained
pilots who practise these scenarios in simulators every six months.

Malaysia Airlines is not some cut-price operator with poorly trained pilots.
It is a world-class airline with well-trained pilots who can easily handle
any emergency , as they are trained to do with Boeing best practice
immediate action drills.

At first I thought it was a bomb, as only a sudden massive event (such as
MH17 being shot down over Ukraine) could have prevented a well-trained
crew from reacting according to their training.

But then a method of tracking the plane via hourly satellite handshakes
revealed the aircraft had flown for more than seven hours and was most
likely in the southern Indian Ocean. I, and every B777 pilot I questioned,
did not know about these satellite handshakes . Then the penny dropped.
The flight management system computer must have been reprogrammed .
Otherwise the aircraft would have flown itself to Beijing if the pilots were
incapacitated and the damage of any event was not so severe as to cause
autopilot disconnect - which would have resulted in a uncontrolled crash.

An aircraft can be flown only in two ways. First is manual hand flying .
This normally is done only on takeoff and landing. In a typical eight-hour
flight the pilot would touch the controls only for several minutes. The
second method of control is by autopilot, which reduces human error to a
minimum. This is normal for climb, cruise and descent.

The B777 has three autopilots, all of which are linked - if one plays up,
the other two automatically reject it. The autopilot is controlled by an FMS
computer. The B777 has three - all linked - and it uses information fed in
by the managing pilot to command the autopilot how and where to fly. There
is no third way. It cannot meander by itself, uncontrolled across the sky,
as it would crash.

Say I were to fly a jet from Sydney to Auckland. I enter the departure
airfield YSSY and the destination NZAA, and the FMS responds with a
selection of suitable airways. I choose Airway L521. Immediately after
takeoff I engage autopilot, knowing the aircraft will now fly itself to
Auckland unless I delete the destination and select a new destination and
airway . The savants of the Australian Transport Safety Board surely know
this.

Examples abound. Take the Helios B737 flight from Larnaca in Cyprus to
Athens in August 2005, the victim of a failure to pressurise due to
incorrect switch selection by poorly trained pilots who were rendered
unconscious because of hypoxia. Autopilot flew the aircraft to the FMS
programmed destination , Athens, and went into a holding pattern waiting
for landing instructions to be entered in the FMS, until fuel exhaustion
caused a crash.

So, who changed the destination in MH370's FMS?

Soon after the revelation that MH370 flew for more than seven hours to the
southern Indian Ocean, I realized only an accomplished pilot could have
managed this feat. The ATSB has ignored information coming from sources
that should be considered expert.

Simon Hardy, a former British Airways B777 captain, wrote a book that
almost conclusively identifies Zaharie as responsible for the hijack of
MH370 and its flight to the southern Indian Ocean, which likely ended
as a controlled ditching as per Boeing flight manual procedures.

Hardy calculated a likely ditching area based on known fuel on board and
the fuel burn figures from the B777 flight manual, and allowing for known
upper winds. This is well to the south and west of the area so far searched.
Such calculations produce a much more accurate probable position than
the very broad one indicated by the satellite handshakes and the ATSB's
mathematical modelling.

It was apparent from the start the ATSB was pushing a flame-out theory
that negates any pilot involvement . Since November 2014 I have pointed
out the impossibility of some of the strange stuff put out by the ATSB.
Why did it never consider pilot involvement? The aircraft suddenly turned
westward over the South China Sea and flew a precise track - revealed
by analysis of Malaysian military radar - across northern Malaysia. It
avoided Thai military radar, then turned, after circling Zaharie's home
island of Penang, to the northwest up the Straits of Malacca and
around the northern tip of Sumatra, avoiding Indonesian military radar,
and eventually headed south. This shows precise control of the aircraft.

Why no debris? In 2004, a Flash Airlines B737 crashed after taking off
at night from Sharm el-Sheikh because of pilot disorientation . It came
in from 2500 feet at about 500 km/h. Masses of debris floated for a long
time. A much bigger B777 hitting the sea from 37,000 ft at 1200 km/h
would produce a huge amount of debris that would float for months.
Conclusion : it did not crash and was flying under control.

The B777 has three VHF radios; two HF radios; two transponders that
supply secondary radar information to air traffic control of call sign,
altitude and position; ACARS (aircraft communications addressing and
reporting system); a satellite phone; and even a fax machine . To
disable all these systems, which are on separate electrical buses to
provide fail-safe redundancy , the pilot would have to turn off everything
within reach, then leave his seat to pull circuit-breakers on a panel on
the rear cockpit bulkhead.

An event to disable all these systems would have to be so serious, it is
extremely doubtful the aircraft could still be flying, let alone continue
for seven hours.

Analysis of Malaysian military radar revealed the aircraft had climbed to
45,000 ft as it tracked across northern Malaysia. The only reason for
doing this would be to incapacitate passengers and cabin crew by
hypoxia. Only pilots' masks have selectable pressure breathing
capacity.

Hardy's book is quite detailed about the rogue pilot theory and draws
attention to the fact the aircraft circled Penang as if in a farewell to
Zaharie's home island. Former Malaysian opposition leader Anwar
Ibrahim has confirmed Zaharie was a card-carrying member of his
party (and an very distant relative) but has dismissed suggestions he
may have diverted the plane as a political act. Hours before the flight
vanished, Anwar, de facto leader of the People's Justice Party, was
sentenced to five years in jail after a court overturned his 2012
acquittal on a sodomy charge. Zaharie reportedly attended the
hearing.

Who changed the destination in MH370's flight management system
computer? B
Several months after the MH370 disappearance I was told by a
government source that the FBI had recovered from Zaharie's home
computer deleted information showing flight plan waypoints . Here,
I assumed, was the smoking gun. To fly to the southern Indian
Ocean, which has no airway leading from north of Sumatra to the
south, the pilot would need to define flight plan waypoints via
latitude and longitude for insertion in the FMC.

When nothing about this emerged from ATSB I rang my source. He
confirmed what he had told me and left me with the impression that
the FBI were of the opinion that Zaharie was responsible for the crash.
A

The flaperon found on a Reunion Island beach was definitely
from MH370. The flaperon sits immediately behind the engines on a
B777. The engines sit well below the fuselage and in a controlled
ditching would contact the water first. The engines are held on by
shear bolts and are expected to rip off (taking the flaperon with
them) on contact with water.

Ditching procedure is covered in every aircraft flight manual and
training is given by airlines every year for pilots and cabin crew.
Common sense suggests when Zaharie got a low fuel warning he
initiated descent while still heading south and performed a
controlled ditching under engine power before the engines flamed
out because of fuel starvation. The aircraft would sink rapidly.

When the flaperon was analyzed by Boeing, the manufacturer said,
along with US aviation safety consultant John Cox, that it had been
broken off in a lowered position, consistent with the theory MH370
had made a controlled ditching into the sea. The ATSB initially said
damage to the flaperon was consistent with a high-speed dive after
flame-out . Later the ATSB changed tack to say damage to the
flaperon still supported the flame-out theory but showed the aircraft
glided uncontrolled to a soft landing on the sea (hence no debris).
Really? Who lowered the flap?

Last month it was revealed the search for MH370 had been adjusted
after Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss released a new report
indicating efforts should focus on the southern end of the search
area and go farther west. The wider search area was considered
the most "prospective" , and the search of the northern end of the
arc was to be abandoned. Only now is the search operation probably
moving to the correct area. Since March 2014, they have been
searching in the wrong area. All the projections assuming no pilot
involvement and "flame-out theory" have placed the search area
too far north and east.

If they had followed Hardy's and my reasoning of pilot involvement
they would have calculated a position much farther south and west.
A B777 in cruise covers 900 km in an hour and probably flew more
than 7000 km after the hijack event.

Two weeks ago I flew to Dubai for simulator training. On December
29, I and another senior B777 pilot put the ATSB flame-out theories
to the test in a B777 simulator. The results revealed the ATSB's
theories are completely wrong. It claimed that most of the analysis
from an estimated flame-out involved the aircraft making a left turn.
But when we flamed out an engine at 37,000ft to simulate fuel
starvation of the first engine, the autopilots remained on the
commanded track.

The ATSB, under the heading "Search Area Width" , said "glide
distance under active control after second engine flame-out was
125 nm (230 km) which favours a no active control scenario". To
a pilot this is very confusing because I don't understand what they
mean. (Boeing would be gobsmacked a B777 with both engines
flamed out could glide so far while in a practically stalled condition.)

Last month's ATSB report had me deeply troubled. It bases search
area calculations of projected flight paths on grossly incorrect
assumptions. A B777 cannot fly level at 37,000ft on one engine after
a flame-out because of fuel starvation. The only thing I can agree on
with the ATSB is that MH370 would probably not be under active -
hand-flown - control. Right from the start the ATSB has assumed
no pilot involvement. But only an expert B777 pilot could have
disabled the extensive communications avionics suite when the
aircraft disappeared electronically. Only an expert pilot could have
reprogrammed the FMS to fly to the southern Indian Ocean,
otherwise the B777 would have flown on to Beijing. Only a pilot
could have lowered the flap for the controlled ditching.

The only logical conclusion I can draw is that Zaharie carefully
planned and executed this very clever hijack scenario to end up
in perhaps the world's most unsurveyed deep-sea mountainous
terrain, 6.5 km deep in a cold, dark hell that would not be found -
an area not that far north of Antarctica.
==============================================
Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years'
experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot
and trainer and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years,
during which he flew the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet
as Malaysia Airlines MH370.


Copyright C 2016 The Australian

Having said that, all Boeings since before 9-11 are fitted with a control system that can fly the aircraft by remote control from the ground or another aircraft. This remote system is not constrained by the normal parameters applied by the on-board computers that do the "Fly By Wire" stuff, meaning the aircraft can perform manoeuvers under remote control that would not be possible when flown by the crew.

What, no conspiracy posters on this thread?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If the fuselage landed intact, then the things that would normally separate and float like seats, bags and doors are still inside the plane.

But the usual experts are to give everyone their opinion.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

all Boeings since before 9-11 are fitted with a control system that can fly the aircraft by remote control from the ground

Thank you for accepting that fact.