Another MH370 theory

[Shadowpup]

Well at least the ocean is giving up the parts better now !

Yeah

There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from the condition of these pieces… Since natural means could not have delivered them to the locations where they were discovered, they must have been put there deliberately. They were planted.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3003738/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-plane-debris-planted-deliberately-expert-says-but-who-did-it-and-why/#TVl8LCupFDzws7EH.99

http://www.inquisitr.com/3003738/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-plane-debris-planted-deliberately-expert-says-but-who-did-it-and-why/

[Czero 101]

The Inquisitr...? Seriously....?

Cz

[Shadowpup]

Yep, seriously. Needed ratings I guess.

[tazjet]

On 12/01/2016 at 6:22 PM, Obviousman said:

I can't read the article (pay-to-view, at least in Oz) but although I agree that we do not have any answers and it is all speculation, the 'hijack by aircrew' theory is possible and doesn't contradict any of the known facts.

Known facts are that there was no electrical power except AC Standby Bus from 18:03 to 18:43 UTC which also means there was no power to the two AIMS cabinets housing all of MH370's navigation capabilities.

Without navigation capability MH370 could not have made a turn abound the bottom of Penang Island to fly an intercept for waypoint VAMPI, then turn from VAMPI to intercept MEKAR. What this tells any rational objective person is that the so called radar evidence is not credible.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5733804/Bayesian_Methods_MH370_Search_3Dec2015.pdf

 

[tazjet]

On 31/03/2016 at 8:43 AM, Czero 101 said:

Ok... fair enough.

What that means is that, before the aircraft disappeared from primary radar on the other side of Malasia, it was seen to change course. It didn't just teleport there, it had to have changed course to get there - turning back and flying in almost the exact opposite direction from its initial course after its transponder was turned off and it disappeared from Secondary radar.

I'm not really sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp, although it sounds like you're still not really familiar with the differences between and different uses of Primary and Secondary Radar.

It was known that the aircraft changed course and turned back towards Malaysia and was headed towards the Indian Ocean before disappearing from primary radar.

This is what had people theorizing initially that the aircraft was in distress and heading to an emergency landing at Langkawi.

That it was known essentially right away that it changed course wasn't a secret, nor is it part of any coverup or conspiracy.

Seriously, Earl.... you need to fully understand the differences between the two radars in use by ATC. It's not a mystery or a coverup.

Cz

It is incorrect to show in your image that one communication system (ACARS) was disabled at 17:07 UTC. ACARS does not broadcast continuously. 17:07 was a pre-ordained automatic ACARS advisory simply to say MH370 had reached cruise altitude. It does not mean that at 17:08 the ACARS system was disabled. Such silly inaccuracies are how the MH370 story has snowballed based on wild myths.

[tazjet]

On 13/01/2016 at 11:13 AM, PersonFromPorlock said:

I've followed this disappearance on an airline pilots' chat site and the consensus is that the autopilot could easily fly the airplane until it ran out of fuel. The controversy is what happens after that, whether the autopilot would continue to hold the plane in a level attitude until it hit the water in a (literally) dead-stick ditching, or try to do so but build up errors until the plane hit the water hard enough to disintegrate.

Which of these is true I don't know, but I note that the experts have no problem with the airplane flying itself for as long as the fuel lasted.

The Autopilot disengaged just 60 seconds or so, prior to the attempted log on at 00:19 UTC. The log-on was triggered by double engine flame-out because loss of power triggered deployment of the RAT which in turn started the APU. This started a second Log-on (attempt) by the SDU (SATCOM antenna). Because of two reasons, fuel starvation for the APU and also because the Log-on itself failed one can say with certainty there was no autopilot control at the end.

Indeed the RAT is hard wired not to provide power to the autopilot whereas the AC Standby Bus can power the autopilot for following a simple magnetic heading. AC Standby however does not power the navigation systems required to guide the autopilot to navigation waypoints. MH370 was operating from AC Standby Bus and at 18:25 UTC the aircraft automatically restored power to the Left AC Bus. We know this because the RAT can only power the Left AC Bus or the AC Standby Bus but not the Right AC Bus. Furthermore the SDU operates the High Gain Antenna (HGA) only from the Left AC Bus.  

[Shadowpup]

This is all very interesting. I'm still unclear though on the lack of debris.

[Czero 101]

6 hours ago, tazjet said:

It is incorrect to show in your image that one communication system (ACARS) was disabled at 17:07 UTC. ACARS does not broadcast continuously. 17:07 was a pre-ordained automatic ACARS advisory simply to say MH370 had reached cruise altitude. It does not mean that at 17:08 the ACARS system was disabled. Such silly inaccuracies are how the MH370 story has snowballed based on wild myths.

Well, ok... I don't see how a piece of information that was not part of the response I was making discounts what I was saying, but ... whatever. Blame the BBC or whomever created the image that I used to illustrate a completely different point. *shrug*

In regards to what you have said, the bottom line here is that the ACARS system sent it's last message at 17:07. It's a fair assumption that it was disabled at some point after that. Since it is not possible to say exactly when the ACARS system was disabled, saying it was disabled after the last message was sent is a convenience to illustrate a point that nothing was sent after that sent message and that there were no replies to ACARS queries sent after that time. It is only inaccurate in the sense that it is impossible to know when it was actually disabled. While I agree with you that there are various inaccuracies and flat out falsehoods in the available information, this one item does not, in my opinion, contribute to the point you are trying to make.

 

 

 

Cz

Edited June 9, 2016 by Czero 101

[Czero 101]

4 hours ago, tazjet said:

The Autopilot disengaged just 60 seconds or so, prior to the attempted log on at 00:19 UTC. The log-on was triggered by double engine flame-out because loss of power triggered deployment of the RAT which in turn started the APU. This started a second Log-on (attempt) by the SDU (SATCOM antenna). Because of two reasons, fuel starvation for the APU and also because the Log-on itself failed one can say with certainty there was no autopilot control at the end.

Indeed the RAT is hard wired not to provide power to the autopilot whereas the AC Standby Bus can power the autopilot for following a simple magnetic heading. AC Standby however does not power the navigation systems required to guide the autopilot to navigation waypoints. MH370 was operating from AC Standby Bus and at 18:25 UTC the aircraft automatically restored power to the Left AC Bus. We know this because the RAT can only power the Left AC Bus or the AC Standby Bus but not the Right AC Bus. Furthermore the SDU operates the High Gain Antenna (HGA) only from the Left AC Bus.  

Sources for this information would be appreciated.

 

 

Cz

[tazjet]

Dispelling inaccuracies about ACARS signals are important because people have reported the fact inaccurately to slant the narrative to suit their own views.

[Czero 101]

1 minute ago, tazjet said:

Dispelling inaccuracies about ACARS signals are important because people have reported the fact inaccurately to slant the narrative to suit their own views.

Understandable, but in the context of how the image I used was being used, you're way off topic. The appearance here is that you're using that inaccuracy as a way toi discredit the completely different point i was using that image to make.

 

One could infer that to be trolling.

 

 

 

Cz

[tazjet]

4 hours ago, Shadowpup said:

This is all very interesting. I'm still unclear though on the lack of debris.

Quite a lot of debris have been recovered to date from Beaches bordering the south eastern Indian Ocean. All have in common some form of inherent buoyancy such as closed cell honeycomb construction. Other larger pieces likely to have stayed afloat solely due to trapped air pockets would have gradually lost buoyancy and sank. Do not forget that satellites between 16-26 March 2014 spotted two very large debris fields, one of 122 objects and another of 300+. Unfortunately the Australians refused to search the seabed in the location suggested by reverse drift analysis of these objects.

I suggest you check out the debris images here:

https://bookofresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/mh370-all-about-the-reunion-island-debris/

 

 

[tazjet]

15 minutes ago, Czero 101 said:

Sources for this information would be appreciated.

 

 

Cz

Sure Bayesian Analysis report by Australia's DTSG published by the ATSB on 03 December 2015 which indicated evidence from two log on events suggested:

#1 Massive electrical failure early in the flight

#2 Second log on was caused by dual engine flame out caused by fuel exhaustion

Fuel exhaustion at 00:19 UTC was characteristic of how aircraft with hypoxic (ie unconscious) crew behave. The most famous such loss being Golfer Stewart Payne. The loss of Helios 552 was slightly uncharacteristic because a male flight attendant managed to enter the cockpit and tried vainly to regain control. Normally upon fuel exhaustion aircraft enter into an uncontrolled spiral when their autopilots disengage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5733804/Bayesian_Methods_MH370_Search_3Dec2015.pdf

In addition I have done some research of my own into the electrical architecture of the Boeing 777 drawing from multiple sources about B777 avionics. The Cockpit systems operate off three DC Bus relays (L,R & Captain's centre relay) and two main AC Bus relays plus a third AC Standby Bus drawing power from the main battery or APU in flight. 

Both main engines each have a variable speed constant output IDG generator which in effect are AC alternators. Unusually DC power is converted off these into DC power. Additionally however both engines also have smaller standby  DC generators. DC power from these can be converted in emergencies back into AC power for limited uses. It is fair to say however that in the event of loss of both IDG sources, power supply is deliberately limited and denies power to many of the higher functioning electronics housed in the AIMS cabinets where navigation and communications are managed.

http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_29.pdf

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/cockpit-systems/airplane-information-management-system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane_Information_Management_System

The SDU SATCOM High Gain antenna however operates off the Left AC Bus relay. The Boeing 777 was designed from the outset to automatically switch between relays with uninterrupted power supply in the event of power failure to one relay. The B777 has both DC batteries and AC batteries which carry the load during transfer normally lasting just 60 seconds. MH370 was bizarre in that the SDU is now known to have been unpowered for more than 60 seconds from 18:03 to 18:25 UTC when the SDU logged on again.

 

[tazjet]

42 minutes ago, Czero 101 said:

Understandable, but in the context of how the image I used was being used, you're way off topic. The appearance here is that you're using that inaccuracy as a way toi discredit the completely different point i was using that image to make.

 

One could infer that to be trolling.

 

 

 

Cz

I am not trolling by pointing out a factual inaccuracy. This is debating forum to debate the facts. You need to harden up and stop being over-sensitive

[Czero 101]

14 minutes ago, tazjet said:

I am not trolling by pointing out a factual inaccuracy. This is debating forum to debate the facts. You need to harden up and stop being over-sensitive

But the information you're correcting wasn't even under discussion...

It's like I was talking about a drunk driver in a red car that hit and killed a pedestrian, and you come in and start talking about how it's inaccurate to say the red cars tend to make people turn right more often than they turn left..

Interesting info, and maybe it's true... but has no bearing whatsoever on the topic being discussed or the point being made by the post you quoted.

 

Hence the possibility of trolling.

 

ETA...

If you had said something like... "Just a side note about the graphic you shared, the point about the ACARS is inaccurate", then that's vool... but the way you pointed out the inaccuracy leads one to believe that you are discrediting the information provided about Radar because the graphic has inaccurate info about the ACARS.

It's not being overly sensitive or soft to ask that you post accurately, especially sine we are talking about facts. By your own logic, I could say that your point about ACARS being inaccurate is itself inaccurate because you're posting it in regards to something unrelated.

 

 

Cz

Edited June 9, 2016 by Czero 101

[tazjet]

5 hours ago, Czero 101 said:

But the information you're correcting wasn't even under discussion...

It's like I was talking about a drunk driver in a red car that hit and killed a pedestrian, and you come in and start talking about how it's inaccurate to say the red cars tend to make people turn right more often than they turn left..

Interesting info, and maybe it's true... but has no bearing whatsoever on the topic being discussed or the point being made by the post you quoted.

 

Hence the possibility of trolling.

 

ETA...

If you had said something like... "Just a side note about the graphic you shared, the point about the ACARS is inaccurate", then that's vool... but the way you pointed out the inaccuracy leads one to believe that you are discrediting the information provided about Radar because the graphic has inaccurate info about the ACARS.

It's not being overly sensitive or soft to ask that you post accurately, especially sine we are talking about facts. By your own logic, I could say that your point about ACARS being inaccurate is itself inaccurate because you're posting it in regards to something unrelated.

 

 

Cz

If all you want to do is talk about yourself and your hurt feelings why not create your own thread so the rest of us can talk about MH370?

Yor replies sound like teenage angst.

[Czero 101]

1 hour ago, tazjet said:

If all you want to do is talk about yourself and your hurt feelings why not create your own thread so the rest of us can talk about MH370?

Yor replies sound like teenage angst.

Ok, princess.... but if you want to be taken seriously here, then you should learn how to properly debate a topic. Quoting a post and then talking about something completely different than what the quoted post is about and trying to discredit that post with information only tangentially relevant to the topic at best makes you look like a troll who is just taking an opportunity to hear your own words...

 

But please, continue to prove how angsty you think I am by completely ignoring your responsibility to post accurately while you condemn me for posting inaccurate information and then hypocritically telling me to start my own thread when this WHOLE THING STARTED with you posting out of context.....

 

 

Cz

Edited June 10, 2016 by Czero 101

[Obviousman]

15 hours ago, tazjet said:

Known facts are that there was no electrical power except AC Standby Bus from 18:03 to 18:43 UTC which also means there was no power to the two AIMS cabinets housing all of MH370's navigation capabilities.

Without navigation capability MH370 could not have made a turn abound the bottom of Penang Island to fly an intercept for waypoint VAMPI, then turn from VAMPI to intercept MEKAR. What this tells any rational objective person is that the so called radar evidence is not credible.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5733804/Bayesian_Methods_MH370_Search_3Dec2015.pdf

 

Hi! Thanks for the reply.

 

Could you give a brief summary of what you think the facts do support? Especially what common misconceptions are being held be people? Quite important to keep your descriptions at a layman level so everyone can understand.

 

Cheers!

[DONTEATUS]

Sad How all the Small details got covered up by all the Water ?

[Obviousman]

Tazjet, could you please reply to my post?

 

Thank you.

[Obviousman]

Still waiting.....

[DONTEATUS]

Wheel`s on the Short Buss Keep Spinning Round And Round !

[Obviousman]

Well, I guess tazjet doesn't want to discuss this further.

[Gingitsune]

An interesting interview in Die Spiegel
 

Quote

Larry Vance, 67, a Canadian flight accident investigator, has worked on more than 200 airplane crashes, including that of Swissair Flight 111, an MD-11 aircraft that crashed off the Canadian coast in 1998, killing all 229 people on board. Vance concluded the four-year-investigation with a report detailing how a fire had started inside a cockpit panel, probably due to some faulty wiring. Since retiring from Canada's Transport Safety Board in 2009, he started a career as an independent investigation consultant, and also teaches accident investigator courses worldwide. Now Vance has focused his attention on the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which had been en route to Beijing on March 8, 2014 when it vanished from radar screens.

I won't spoil you the conclusion. 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/mh370-disappearance-that-fuselage-is-in-one-piece-says-expert-a-1107149.html

[Habitat]

Latest news is that some of the 15 pieces of wreckage found that are thought to come from the lost plane, show signs of heat and fire damage, lending support to the theory of an onboard fire. How that tallies with the silence from the plane's crew, I don't know.