Malaysia Air Flight 370 Facts of the Flight and 10 Possible Scenarios

March 13th, 2014 | Posted by

flt370lgflt370lg

Here is the #MH370 situation update. I will try to update this article as conditions change.

Let us first start with the basics. The statistics as initially reported are incorrect. Here are the stats for the flight.

The ADS-B transponder of an aircraft is transmitting data twice per second. FR24 saves data every 10-60 second depending on altitude. Data is normally saved once per 60 seconds. By analyzing all our databases and logs we have managed to recover about 2 signals per minute for the last 10 minutes.

Time of departure: 16:41+- Last position Time UTC: 17:21 Lat: 6.97 Lon: 103.63 Alt: 35000 Speed: 471 knots Heading: 40

This is less than one hour of flight, which is contrary to the reported duration of around 2 hours. This flight only lasted 38-40 minutes on radar.

Coincidence: Pan Am Flight 103 was in the air 38 minutes.

Between 17:19 and 17:20 the aircraft was changing heading from 25 to 40 degrees, which is completely according to flight plan. Previous flights of MH370 on both 4 March and 8 March did the same at the same position. The last 2 signals are both showing that the aircraft is heading in direction 40 degrees.

We have heard reports in media that MH370 may have turned around. I have not seen this in the evidence from the tracking database. This could have happened if the aircraft suddenly lost altitude, as FR24 database coverage in that area is limited to about 29000 feet. There were no emergency squawk alerts for flight MH370 before coverage was lost of the aircraft. Playback for flight MH370 is available on the following page.

Click Here to see the radar screen of the flights in the area and what seems to be a huge Radar “Blink”

There is a clock rolling on the left legend under search

You should pay attention to the following aircraft:

MAS 370    This is Malaysian Air 370    Departed at 16:41    You can find the airport from which he departed on the left    mid portion of the screen under the word Malaysia.
KAL 672     Korean Airlines Flt 872    Departed at 16:14    This aircraft is flying north our of Kuala Lumpur. Very erratic     flight.    It disappears then reappears at the moment  MAS 370 Disappears
UAE 419    United Arab Emirates     Flt 419    Overflies Brunei          at 16:39    This aircraft enters from the middle right-hand of the screen.    It flies across the Ocean toward Bangkok. However previous flights    are in a substantially different flight path from Sydney to Bangkok.    This aircraft disappears and then reappears after FLT370 disappears.

It is apparent that a huge radar “blind spot” has occurred in the area that did not previously exist. This Radar interference cause many aircraft to leave the radar screen in a 1 hour period, only one did not return on radar.

Malaysia’s Department of Civil Aviation’s Director General Azharuddin Abdul Rahman briefs reporters at a press conference on search and recovery efforts within existing and new areas for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane,Sepang, Malaysia, March 10, 2014.

A Malaysian police official displays a photograph of 19-year-old Iranian Pouri Nourmohammadi, one of the two men who boarded missing Malaysia Airlines MH370 flight using stolen European passports.

This combination of images released by Interpol and displayed by Malaysian police in Sepang, Malaysia, on March 11, 2014, shows Pouri Nourmohammadi, 19, (left) and Delavar Seyedmohammaderza, 29, who allegedly boarded the now-missing Malaysia Airlines jet

We are evaluating this information. There are several scenarios. Pandora, by Grumman Northrop Technologies can interfere with long distance tracking of aircraft, thus creating large areas where the transponders are unable to effectively communicate and radar signals are blocked. Some of the possible causes for the plane disappearing include:

  • A CATASTROPHIC STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Most aircraft are made of aluminum, which is susceptible to corrosion over time, especially in areas of high humidity. Given the plane’s long history and impressive safety record, experts suggest that a failure of the air frame, or the plane’s Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines, is unlikely.
  • More of a threat to the plane’s integrity is the constant pressurization and depressurization of the cabin for takeoff and landing. In April 2011, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 made an emergency landing shortly after takeoff from Phoenix after the plane’s fuselage ruptured, causing a 5-foot tear. The plane, with 118 people on board, landed safely. But such a rupture is less likely in this case. Airlines fly the 777 on longer distances, with many fewer takeoffs and landings, putting less stress on the air frame.
  • “It’s not like this was Southwest Airlines doing 10 flights a day,” Hamilton said. “There’s nothing to suggest there would be any fatigue issues.”
  • BAD WEATHER. Planes are designed to fly through most severe storms. However, in June 2009, an Air France flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed during a bad storm over the Atlantic Ocean. Ice built up on the Airbus A330′s airspeed indicators, giving false readings. That, and bad decisions by the pilots, led the plane into a stall causing it to plummet into the sea. All 228 passengers and crew aboard died. The pilots never radioed for help.

In the case of Saturday’s Malaysia Airlines flight, all indications show that there were clear skies.

  • PILOT DISORIENTATION. Curtis said that the pilots could have taken the plane off autopilot and somehow went off course and didn’t realize it until it was too late. The plane could have flown for another five or six hours from its point of last contact, putting it up to 3,000 miles away. This is unlikely given that the plane probably would have been picked up by radar somewhere.But it’s too early to eliminate it as a possibility.
  • FAILURE OF BOTH ENGINES. In January 2008, a British Airways 777 crashed about 1,000 feet short of the runway at London’s Heathrow Airport. As the plane was coming in to land, the engines lost thrust because of ice buildup in the fuel system. There were no fatalities.

Loss of both engines is possible in this case, but Hamilton said the plane could glide for up to 20 minutes, giving pilots plenty of time to make an emergency call. When a US Airways A320 lost both of its engines in January 2009 after taking off from LaGuardia Airport in New York it was at a much lower elevation. But Capt. Chesley B. “Sully” Sullenberger still had plenty of communications with air traffic controllers before ending the six-minute flight in the Hudson River. Even with engine loss, there would have been communications. Unlikely scenario

  • A BOMB. Several planes have been brought down including Pan Am Flight 103 between London and New York in December 1988. There was also an Air India flight in June 1985 between Montreal and London and a plane in September 1989 flown by French airline Union des Transports Aériens which blew up over the Sahara. Good Possibility given the circumstances,however no debris field tends to negate this for now.
  • HIJACKING/COMMANDEERING. A traditional hijacking seems unlikely given that a plane’s captors typically land at an airport and have some type of demand. But a 9/11-like hijacking is possible, with terrorists forcing the plane into the ocean. In today’s climate there are other possibilities that include the hostage taking for political motives. The South China Sea is amuck with terrorists and struggling nations.The Radar abnormalities could indicate some advanced operation to take an aircraft from under the nose of controllers. In addition to this, it is a possibility that the aircraft was commandeered for use as a negotiating tool or warning.
  • PILOT SUICIDE. There were two large jet crashes in the late 1990s — a Silk Air flight and an Egypt Air flight– that are believed to have been caused by pilots deliberately crashing the planes. Government crash investigators never formally declared the crashes suicides but both are widely acknowledged by crash experts to have been caused by deliberate pilot actions.
  • ACCIDENTAL SHOOT-DOWN. There have been incidents when a country’s military unintentionally shot down civilian aircraft. In July 1988, the United States Navy missile cruiser USS Vincennes accidently shot down an Iran Air flight, killing all 290 passengers and crew. In September 1983, a Korean Air Lines flight was shot down by a Russian fighter jet. Note: Vietnam had just taken delivery of an advanced Russian Black Hole Submarine with Ground to Air missile capability. Normal procedures for the acquisition of such a vessel include a series of training and certification runs. The zone where Flight 370 was shot down was shallow enough to allow a safety net for secret training exercises. Relatively few aircraft fly the route at the time of the loss of Flt 307. Considering that fact, it would be fruitless to trust in any investigation information coming from Vietnam officials
  • DELIBERATE TAKE-DOWN.  This differs substantially form any of the previous possible causes.  Reasons for an intentional take down could include intimidating a particular entity to align or fall behind certain politics of a civil or governmental/Semi- governmental entity. Powerful organizations exist that will not hesitate at intimidating, or assassinating at will.

.

It is my opinion, that there are far too many irregularities involved in this incident for it to be a simple aviation accident. Absent of a debris field, the most likely scenario, in my opinion, is a commandeering. Toward what end remains to be seen.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/13/malaysia-air-flight-370-facts-of-the-flight-and-9-possible-scenarios/

Hijacked. Planes don’t just disappear unless the transponder is switched off and the plane’s diverted after the fact. When a plane goes down, they start where the last transponder signal was received, and then they follow the airplane’s scheduled flight path to look for wreckage. The only reason they wouldn’t find any wreckage is if the plane went a different direction AFTER the transponder signal was lost. So, I don’t know anyone capable of stealing a jetliner, or anything like that, but hijacking is the only remaining probability when examining the facts. One does wonder with all the spying and satellite resources-technology we have that a jumbo jet can just disappear.

Why did they cut off the lower extremities of the Iranians in the picture…

~~~

UPDATE 3/15/2014 -

 “A Malaysian police official displays photographs of the two men who boarded the Malaysia Airlines MH370 flight using stolen European passports to the media at a hotel near Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Sepang on March 11, 2014. — PHOTO: AFP”
.
Those are the original pictures – see link – obviously the same legs?! Why photoshop (however poorly) their lower extremities in the first place? Anyway since the photo was published Interpol is saying they don’t believe they’re terrorists afterall.  Source
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s