• MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

MH370 Preliminary Report Released - Full Text and Files

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Via:
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/as...ins-press-statement-mh370-may-1-2014-20140501





Audio logs
https://soundcloud.com/straitstimes/sets/audio-logs-from-mh370
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So is the claim about rapid height change not an official one then, as it doesn't seem to be mentioned?
 
Four simple questions about the "HIGHEST PROBABILITY AREA" in the map above:

1. Doesn't this search location require average speed of 325 knots for the 4 hours it flew south?
2. Isn't that 34% below typical cruising speed (TCS) for a 777-200ER (around 490 kts)?
3. Doesn't fig6 (p8) of http://bit.ly/1iw598l suggest HIGHER fuel burn rate than at TCS?
lower --> slower --> denser air --> more drag
4. Doesn't this flatly contradict the stated reason for moving the site (less fuel)?

The linked study systematically varied the cruise speed on two long-range (Airbus A320) flights, and noted impact on fuel consumption. Here are the key figures:

upload_2014-5-1_22-54-23.png

On both graphs (two different flights), a 20% reduction in speed caused a 20% INCREASE in fuel consumption per unit distance. Meaning about a wash in terms of fuel consumption per unit TIME.

But look at the changing SLOPE of the graph. It means that, for anything SLOWER than 20% below optimum, fuel burn per unit time is HIGHER than at optimum.

Meaning MH370 would have preserved fuel longer flying at 490 than at its "MOST PROBABLE" speed of 325.

This time, folks, I'm afraid it is the "official theory" that needs to be debunked.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Four simple questions about the "HIGHEST PROBABILITY AREA"

1. Doesn't the above require average speed of 325 knots for the 4 hours it flew south?
2. Isn't that 34% below typical cruising speed (TCS) for a 777-200ER (around 490 kts)?
3. Doesn't fig6 (p8) of http://bit.ly/1iw598l suggest HIGHER fuel burn rate than at TCS?
I only see three simple questions.

....but know this, when we attempt to consider fuel burn rates at various altitudes for a large commercial airliner....it is VERY complicated.

Variances include:

-The actual Gross Weight
-The actual Altitude
-The actual Power Settings (which determine the Speed, at any given altitude, and the Fuel Consumption rates)

When those many variables have no distinct definition, it becomes much harder to speculate.

ETA...sorry but the PDF link there isn't actually relevant to a B-777. it is quite general in nature. I'll look through it, and pick out some aspects that I think are significant. But really, actual Graphs and Performance data published by Boeing for that specific type and variant are much more useful, if one can find them online.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Fuel consumption also depends on aircraft configuration.

4. Doesn't this flatly contradict the stated reason for moving the site (less fuel)?
as far as I can see from the attached maps the higher speeds do have the aircraft travelling further - into the "mid probability" area. The lower speeds have it travelling less distance to the "high probability area"
 
Feel free to do so - but remember that asking question is not debunking.
Agreed - but the answers are obvious, and damning. They said the new location was forced by LACK of fuel - yet the study shows the plane would have used LESS fuel going at typical cruising speed (through less atmosphere), and hitting the arcs much closer to the original NTSB "most probable".

The architects of this "fuel" argument have been caught in a lie. I, for one, would like to know why they have lied.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
On both graphs (two different flights), a 20% reduction in speed caused a 20% INCREASE in fuel consumption per unit distance.
I think I can help, coincidentally I found a source for a full range of Boeing 767-300 Charts and Graphs related to Performance. I know, not the same airplane type, but they can help you in learning about how actual Performance Charts (for Boeings) are formulated, and the figures should give some clues for the B-777....with some extrapolations. This is (sorry) a LARGE 'scribd' file, but rest assured, it is loaded with Charts and Graphs...many of which I will be happy to explain, if you have questions:

Boeing 767 Airplane Flight Manual

The architects of this "fuel" argument have been caught in a lie.
Not necessarily, when you understand the aspects of large airliners' fuel burns, at various weights and altitudes....and power settings (which determine speed).

Rule-of-Thumb for an airliner --- lower altitude = higher fuel consumption rates.

Also, when at low altitude, slower speeds {below best Lift over Drag coefficient} results in excess fuel consumption, for a given configuration (and, we are assuming for MH370 a "Clean" config).

As you can see.....many variables can enter into this.
 
Last edited:
I only see three simple questions.

....but know this, when we attempt to consider fuel burn rates at various altitudes for a large commercial airliner....it is VERY complicated.

Variances include:

-The actual Gross Weight
-The actual Altitude
-The actual Power Settings (which determine the Speed, at any given altitude, and the Fuel Consumption rates)

When those many variables have no distinct definition, it becomes much harder to speculate.

ETA...sorry but the PDF link there isn't actually relevant to a B-777. it is quite general in nature. I'll look through it, and pick out some aspects that I think are significant. But really, actual Graphs and Performance data published by Boeing for that specific type and variant are much more useful, if one can find them online.
You are 100% correct on the B-777-specific data - we need that, yes.

But the three variances you mention were just as known (or unknown) for the NEW site as they were for the OLD (NTSB Most Probable) site. Their model gave them a path (at typical cruising speed, mind you) that ended in one spot - then it had them move it 1,000 miles. Why? Because they changed ONE input - amount of fuel in the tank at IGREX. That was the entirety of their argument for moving it. It was that one single variable change they said forced their model to chart a dramatically different path. Since they moved it to a place that would have cost MORE fuel to get to (because it still needed to stay in the air until 8:11, remember - if they'd changed the crash TIME as well, that would've been a different story), THAT is why I'm saying they are not telling us the truth.
 
Thanks, WeedWhacker, for the Boeing manual. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything in its 500+ pages that had what I wanted: what happens to a B-777's fuel burn rate as cruise speed is systematically reduced WELL below normal. Ideally, we need this report to show fuel consumption at speeds ranging from 500 down to as low as the 323 knots (published in #1, above, as MH370's "most probable" speed).

I can't take this much further, myself. Most journalists have a "you must be this many feet credible" test before they let you in the door - that means the spotlight on this inconsistency needs to come from the aviation community - ideally, a pilot's association, or an aeronautical engineering group - someone/something with the credibility to be taken seriously.

I attempted Thursday to get this investigation airborne via CNN's online comments section (similar to the above, only MORE polite): within 24 hours - and as I speak - CNN seems to have put the Denver Boot on my one-day-old user account, preventing me from commenting. Interesting...
 
Fuel consumption also depends on aircraft configuration.



as far as I can see from the attached maps the higher speeds do have the aircraft travelling further - into the "mid probability" area. The lower speeds have it travelling less distance to the "high probability area"
Replying (finally) to #5: please see #9.

Also note that neither the "higher" speeds you reference - nor the "longer" distances leading to the "mid-probability" area - are anywhere NEAR those of the original "NTSB most probable" path - which had MH370 going at normal (490 knots) cruise speed, and crashing so far to the SW that it would be way off all maps in #1. It is THAT path that the charts in #3 suggest would use less fuel than ANY of the ultra-slow speeds (325-350 knots = 34-29% below typical cruising speed) given on the maps in #1.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Thanks, WeedWhacker, for the Boeing manual. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything in its 500+ pages that had what I wanted: what happens to a B-777's fuel burn rate as cruise speed is systematically reduced WELL below normal. Ideally, we need this report to show fuel consumption at speeds ranging from 500 down to as low as the 323 knots (published in #1, above, as MH370's "most probable" speed).
Yeah, I realize that the link didn't include that performance data. I DID, however, find some data for the B-767 (and, I apologize for not remembering where, atm, but it's posted here on MetaBunk somewhere...).

The B-767-300 performance data (that I found online) could, at least, be used as a guide.

As I said, the specifics of current Boeing products (still in production) usually aren't freely available online.

eBay is an idea that just occurred to me, if you wished to shop for such material...or, contact Boeing directly, of course.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The 323 knots at 30000 feet at the most probable point doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. I wish they would explain the reasoning behind the map.

In nil wind, the 323 knots groundspeed equates to approx 202 knots CAS. With the tailwinds usually evident in that part of the world it is even less. It would be just above the clean stall speed. I cannot fathom the circumstances, either deliberate or accident that would lead to that situation for 6 hours. ( having said that the auto flight system and fly by wire system are quite capable of doing that... I just can't see why).

The more southerly points have a lower altitude, presumably derived from some fancy maths using slant angles from the satellite. They are more realistic yet somehow shown as less probable.

I stared at those maps for a hour when they first came out trying to make some sense of them. I have still failed to do so.
 
Technical question (but this time easy, I hope) for aviation experts: is it clear to you - from context, or from other documentation - whether the speeds (ranging from 323 to 350 knots) appearing at the nodes in the maps in #1 above are "indicated" or "true" airspeeds?

Knowing this would help determine whether it is the new or the old search site that is rendered infeasible by the above data.

It still must be one or the other - they were searching at the end of the 450 knot path before, per http://bit.ly/Rgaqv1. If they've been using "indicated" all along, then 450kts (at 35k, with 0.02 OAT Estimation Correction) = 765kts true = 880mph...

 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...the speeds (ranging from 323 to 350 knots) appearing at the nodes in the maps in #1 above are "indicated" or "true" airspeeds?
When we are considering an airplane's track over the ground, what matters is "Ground Speed"... to clarify.

An airplane with either an "indicated" airspeed (or, "true airspeed" ('TAS'), which is IAS corrected for temperature and pressure altitude) is not relevant unless one knows the actual wind speeds, aloft....in order to know the actual "Ground Speed".

In the part of the World (SouthEast Asia) where MH370 went missing? I do not know the prevailing winds aloft historically. My experience when near Equatorial regions is, winds are usually insignificant (as compared to, say, the Upper latitudes, where jetstreams are prevalent).

I've not flown much in that part of the World. However, a bit of searching will surely find historical Winds Aloft records. These are compiled by radiosonde ("weather ballons") and also various PIREPS (Pilot Reports) as requested by ATC. Nowadays, many routine ACARS downlinks include the IRS-calculated winds also....providing a wealth of "live" info for flight-planning purposes.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
In the part of the World (SouthEast Asia) where MH370 went missing? I do not know the prevailing winds aloft historically. My experience when near Equatorial regions is, winds are usually insignificant (as compared to, say, the Upper latitudes, where jetstreams are prevalent).
It is the same as the Northern Hemisphere, just orientated differently. The aircraft (historically) would have started out with light easterlies in the equatorial regions turn westerly and become progressively stronger the further you fly south. I was talking to a fellow pilot who was in the area on the night in question and he said the westerlies weren't much in evidence however. I don't know what latitude that was.

I have been trying to find the archives but no luck yet.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
This is the 300 hpa chart from the night which indicates the winds around 30,000 feet.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/charts/charts.view.pl?idcode=IDX0100&file=IDX0100.201403081200.gif

MH370 mb map.JPG

My red line is a (very rough) approximation of the supposed most probable track. The reading from the chart, remembering that in the southern hemisphere wind circulates in an anticlockwise direction around a high pressure region, is that it started off with light easterly winds which became light westerlies towards the end of the flight. The wind didn't really have much of an influence on the groundspeed so we are left with the groundspeed closely approximating the True Airspeed (TAS) which if at 30000 feet, represents a CAS of approx 203 knots.

I don't fly the 777 but I can say that it would have been very close to the minimum speed the aircraft would allow. Once again, I dont understand why the aircraft would be in that state. I am just wondering why this is considered the most probable scenario.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
which if at 30000 feet, represents a CAS of approx 203 knots.
No, one does not need to be experienced in the B777 (if one is experienced in other similar jets) to know that 203 KIAS (or KCAS) at 30,000 feet is simply not feasible.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Was the a/c at 30,000 feet?

My understanding is that the track comes from sophisticated analysis of the satellite handshakes - and there is no data about height of the a/c over that area.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Was the a/c at 30,000 feet?

My understanding is that the track comes from sophisticated analysis of the satellite handshakes - and there is no data about height of the a/c over that area.
I think that analysis was simply to determine north vs south. The position on the southern arcs was then determined by assumed speed, which seems implausibly slow, according to the above.
 
When we are considering an airplane's track over the ground, what matters is "Ground Speed"... to clarify.

An airplane with either an "indicated" airspeed (or, "true airspeed" ('TAS'), which is IAS corrected for temperature and pressure altitude) is not relevant unless one knows the actual wind speeds, aloft....in order to know the actual "Ground Speed".

In the part of the World (SouthEast Asia) where MH370 went missing? I do not know the prevailing winds aloft historically. My experience when near Equatorial regions is, winds are usually insignificant (as compared to, say, the Upper latitudes, where jetstreams are prevalent).

I've not flown much in that part of the World. However, a bit of searching will surely find historical Winds Aloft records. These are compiled by radiosonde ("weather ballons") and also various PIREPS (Pilot Reports) as requested by ATC. Nowadays, many routine ACARS downlinks include the IRS-calculated winds also....providing a wealth of "live" info for flight-planning purposes.
Thanks, WW. It's just that I tried to "ask a pilot" (Patrick Smith) about this issue - his response: "You (they) are confusing indicated airspeed with TRUE airspeed." So I went online, to try to educate myself, and found a calculator that showed a huge difference between the two at high altitudes. Don't think it's relevant to my argument (they need to explain the 34% change in modeled speed they tried to push through March 28) - just wanted to eliminate a potential source of confusion.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Was the a/c at 30,000 feet?
On the map it is quoted at 30,000 feet. I am assuming that is a slant range approximation to intersect with the satellite arc. The lesser probability areas further to the south have steadily decreasing altitudes; once again to match the slant range from the satellite arc.

As I said, I wish they would explain their assumptions. As far as I can tell the red most probable area comes from the positions recorded for the reception of the pinger and the green section seems to be where the Chinese ship said it heard a signal. From there they seem to have just worked out a speed that fits to get to those points. But 323 kts GS at 30000 doesn't really work.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
...and found a calculator that showed a huge difference between the two at high altitudes.
Yes, exactly right. At high altitudes (generally above about 23,000 feet) we switch from IAS to Mach for primary reference. But, this is beside the point of Ground Speed, which is what matters in searching for an airplane that is missing. The details of airspeed indication factors don't matter, it is a geographical search now...of course, speed in the air helps to localize a search area, but this case seems to have some mitigating and confusing factors tossed in.
 
Final map attached. Comments:

("#1" = maps in this thread's post #1, above)

White pins: selected Malaysian waypoints
Yellow pins: precise location of Inmarsat satellite at ping times
Orange pins: potential crash sites
Green pins: reported sonar pings
Red pin: multiple eyewitness account of a large, low-flying jet, white, with a red stripe, bearing SW at 9:15am

Planes: five runways in pilot's simulator (Diego Garcia & Maldives = exact; Sri Lanka = probable; India = wild guesses)
Sun: position of Will & Kate (on vacation) March 8

Thin lines: "rainbow" of IA = Inmarsat arcs/distances:
- red=2:29, orange=3:40, yellow=4:40, green=5:40, ltblue=6:40, blue=8:11
- source: Duncan Steele website

Thick lines: hypothetical flight paths:
RED line:
- mimics "HIGHEST PROBABILITY" path in #1
- I was able to pass through all IA & stay on course (except orange=3:40: either the IA data is inaccurate, or #1 is very approximate)
- many observers have assumed the 323kts in #1 must be indicated air speed; but this map confirms they mean gs = ground speed)
- per growing consensus (above, and (I hope) elsewhere), this gs is implausibly slow

WHITE line:
- mimics original NTSB "most probable path"
- 480kts gs = 777 typical cruising speed = plausible

LT BLUE line:
- straight shot to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia (NSFDG)
- just under 4 hours at 480kts gs

LAVENDER line:
- straight shot to Maldives, where Will & Kate were vacationing on March 8
- just under 4 hours at 480kts gs until (presumably) intentions become clear -> plane shot down

GREY line:
- see "MH370 Clone" thread for discussion of this path
- long-shot feasibility in concert with LT BLUE (pre-planned)
- even longer shot as event subsequent to LAVENDER (reactive)

PINK line:
- NW (possibly, but not necessarily, "tracking" another flight), then S to NSFDG
- 8 hours from last radar contact if flown at 440kts ground speed
- hits Kudahuvadhoo at 9:15
- but really tough to reach with published fuel on board

I haven't even bothered plotting any northern routes - suffice to say I'd run out of colours long before I ran out of theories.

Comments:

1) My own guess is WHITE, with RED a craven bid to save $$$ moving what they knew would be a futile search far closer to Aussie bases
- LAVENDER (with RED to save admitting they killed hundreds to save 2) is a close 2nd (Inmarsat is UK-owned, and won't release raw data)

2) None of the alternative theories exactly teems with plausibility

3) ...but they're all worth considering for as long as the official theory continues to defy the laws of physics.

P.S. if the "MH370 Clone" were ever to be involved in a plan to abduct MH370, the smartest play would have been to switch the two planes weeks in advance. Had they pulled that off, LTBLUE + GREY becomes halfway plausible. One could even imagine a planned GREY route that was to hit the original crash site (and give the Maldives a wider berth), but which for some reason veered too far north (DAMN those flaky remote-controls!), causing both eyewitnesses and the need to concoct the absurd RED story.
 

Attachments

TWCobra

Senior Member.
- per growing consensus (above, and (I hope) elsewhere), this gs is implausibly slow
Only at high altitude. It would be the correct groundspeed if the aircraft was flying at between 10.000 and 25000 ft. At 3000 ft the 350 knots of the southern area of probability is actually very high. Not implausibly high, but high nevertheless.
 
Only at high altitude. It would be the correct groundspeed if the aircraft was flying at between 10.000 and 25000 ft. At 3000 ft the 350 knots of the southern area of probability is actually very high. Not implausibly high, but high nevertheless.
But at low speed (& thus altitude), fuel burn rate explodes, per #3, above. I should have been more precise: it's the combination of claimed ground speed and claimed rationale for moving from WHITE to RED (used less fuel) that is implausible.
 
Last edited:
A joke? This has been shown as quite irrelevant.

Now, that is quite funny!
a) I make no claim of plausibility. I'm just listing things that are MORE plausible than the official theory.
b) Consider:
- simulator runways were made irrelevant by Inmarsat/sonar pings, yes
- but if RED path is implausible, its architects are suspects
- if its architects are suspect, so is any evidence they supply
- if ping evidence is suspect, runways are back in play.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
More fuel for speculation, there may be legitimate reasons for it but it doesn't lend confidence.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Interesting if confirmed. There would have been other aircraft on the frequency as well who may be able to confirm what was said.

The thing is though, no-one is too interested in the comms of other aircraft unless they think the aircraft is nearby and has a possibility on conflicting with them. No-one knew this aircraft was about to go missing so they probably didn't pay much attention unless they DID say something suspicious.
 
I will try one more time to make the key point: endurance cannot be maximized by flying the (323kts GS, 30,000') path - in fact, the study I referenced in #3 suggests they are searching at a point on the Inmarsat arc least indicated by an endurance criterion!

Attached is the graph in #3, overlaid with an Excel chart I built to approximate it. Here are the fitted values, and key stats derived from them:

Edit: columns are:
a. Fig. 6 TAS Var (%) (source: see #3, and attached graph)
b. Fig. 6 Fuel Var (%) (source: see #3, and attached graph)
c. Relative Speed (nmi/hr) = (1+a/100)
d. Relative Fuel Eff. (kg/nmi) = (1 + b/100)
e. Fuel Burn Rate (kg/hr) = c x d (maximum endurance when this is lowest)
f. Relative Endurance (hrs) = 7 / e (maximum endurance when this is highest)

a b c d e f
4 12.30 1.04 1.12 1.168 5.993
3
7.76 1.03 1.08 1.110 6.306
2
4.06 1.02 1.04 1.061 6.595
1
1.34 1.01 1.01 1.024 6.839
0
0.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 7.000
-1 -0.40 0.99 1.00 0.986 7.099
-2
-0.37 0.98 1.00 0.976 7.170
-3
-0.28 0.97 1.00 0.967 7.237
-4
-0.10 0.96 1.00 0.959 7.299
-5
0.18 0.95 1.00 0.952 7.355
-6
0.57 0.94 1.01 0.945 7.405
-7
1.05 0.93 1.01 0.940 7.448
-8
1.65 0.92 1.02 0.935 7.485
-9
2.36 0.91 1.02 0.931 7.515
-10
3.18 0.90 1.03 0.929 7.538
-11
4.11 0.89 1.04 0.927 7.555
-12
5.16 0.88 1.05 0.925 7.564
-13
6.32 0.87 1.06 0.925 7.568
-14 7.59 0.86 1.08 0.925 7.565
-15
8.97 0.85 1.09 0.926 7.557
-16
10.47 0.84 1.10 0.928 7.544
-17
12.07 0.83 1.12 0.930 7.525
-18
13.78 0.82 1.14 0.933 7.503
-19
15.59 0.81 1.16 0.936 7.476
-20
17.51 0.80 1.18 0.940 7.446
-21
19.53 0.79 1.20 0.944 7.413
-22
21.65 0.78 1.22 0.949 7.377
-23
23.87 0.77 1.24 0.954 7.339
-24
26.17 0.76 1.26 0.959 7.300
-25
28.57 0.75 1.29 0.964 7.259
-26 31.06 0.74 1.31 0.970 7.217
-27 33.64 0.73 1.34 0.976 7.175
-28 36.30 0.72 1.36 0.981 7.133
-29 39.04 0.71 1.39 0.987 7.091
-30 41.86 0.70 1.42 0.993 7.049
-31 44.75 0.69 1.45 0.999 7.009
-32 47.72 0.68 1.48 1.004 6.969
-33 50.75 0.67 1.51 1.010 6.930
-34 53.85 0.66 1.54 1.015 6.894

I am trying to focus on relative values - I don't want to get bogged down over whether 7 hours is the "right" baseline endurance, or whether "Mach-point-XY" is the "right" normal cruising speed - because this study was on an Airbus A320, and is not useful in absolute terms. But since it studied fuel cost on a large jet, at altitude, over an extended journey, I think it is HIGHLY relevant in relative terms.

Observations:
Endurance was maximized at 13% below normal cruising speed
Endurance at 34% below normal cruising speed was LESS THAN endurance at normal cruising speed
For MH370 to fly the "HIGHEST PROBABILITY" path in #1, it would need to fly at 34% below normal cruising speed

Any questions?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I am glad that you found those fuel figures. As I have stated previously, it is rather complex.

But I still see it as an exercise in futility, since we are only speculating here. I mean, yes one scenario could have the jet at near Sea Level, then at many various airspeeds (and various fuel burn rates)....or at ANY altitude that one chooses, again at various airspeeds (and THEIR associated fuel burn rates)...and, fuel consumption (burn) rates VARY of course...depending on actual Gross Weight....because over time, as fuel is consumed (burned), the Gross Weight decreases....and as weight decreases, then fuel 'burn' goes down, for any given fixed airspeed/altitude/temperature combination.

THIS is why it's so complicated.
 
I am glad that you found those fuel figures. As I have stated previously, it is rather complex.

But I still see it as an exercise in futility, since we are only speculating here. I mean, yes one scenario could have the jet at near Sea Level, then at many various airspeeds (and various fuel burn rates)....or at ANY altitude that one chooses, again at various airspeeds (and THEIR associated fuel burn rates)...and, fuel consumption (burn) rates VARY of course...depending on actual Gross Weight....because over time, as fuel is consumed (burned), the Gross Weight decreases....and as weight decreases, then fuel 'burn' goes down, for any given fixed airspeed/altitude/temperature combination.

THIS is why it's so complicated.
And I still agree with you that deducing speed/fuel usage is a VERY difficult task. But I keep coming back to #9: if the only thing they CHANGED was fuel in the tank - i.e. all else equal - then this graph makes it highly implausible that any properly built model would turn a reduction in available endurance into THAT new path.

I see TWCobra's conclusion in #24 (that heavy + that high + that slow = fail) as merely a different way of expressing a very similar point.

All I'm trying to do here is show mathematically that their argument can't possibly have supported their conclusion. They need to refine their argument, their conclusion, or both.
 

zebra100

Member
I still believe that the Malaysia government either is still hiding some facts or just doesn't want to reveal all they knew. For one thing, they didn't give all the altitude information for each points of military radar tracking. which I saw some newspapers claimed the radar couldn't get the exact height of the plane on the radar which was total false. Military radars, using active radio waves spreading over the air space then collect reflections form objects from that radio wave. They can precisely measure the direct distance from the object to the radar, then by applying simple triangle math, to immediately calculate the object's height above sea level. Even the '40s radar can do that, I was in air force in the '70s, even the weather radar can to that to weather balloon to collect wind, temp, air pressure on different sea levels. The Malaysia opposition leader claimed he imported the most advanced military radar which applied in this case when he was financial minister in the '90s, see here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ment-purposefully-concealing-information.html

so it's impossible the radar can't give precise heights of plane during all the tracking cause.

Thus, if the claim by the news first leaked by the military was true (they must knew that by fact), the airplane climbed to 45,000 then dropped to 23,000 ft and using the waypoints: then how long for each of these heights maintained? The new reports seemed to hide all these crucial information so no one can figure out some meaningful clue from it.

Say, if it is not a catastrophic mechanic issue, they must be some meaning of this strange pattern of heights and waypoints: is someone first tried to disabilitate all passengers and crew members and then autopilot the plane using way points, then reduced the height to low altitude for what? parachuting out of it at safe height? and do something on the small pinging transmitter? (Definitely need snap shots for all crew members carry on at check point to see if it's abnormal than usual)

Whatever it was, it need a very capable and knowledgeable one to do it, but if someone is prepared and plotted, it can be done.

But first thing first, could we get all the radar information about of heights first? Why they always try to hide something? Malaysia government, give us a break on your military secret---we know that's craps!
 
Last edited:

zebra100

Member
Ok, here is someone's assumption:
Yes, I think it would be very easy for the pilot in command of a 777 to do this — here's one scenario:

  1. Ask the copilot to get a glass of water and lock the cockpit door behind him
  2. Don and activate the oxygen mask
  3. Close the engine bleed air valves that supply cabin pressure
  4. Open the controlled outflow valves to equalize cabin pressure to altitude pressure
  5. Put the passenger/supernumerary oxygen to "reset" (or pull the circuit breaker)
  6. Ascend a little bit above the service ceiling of FL 410.
At FL 450, consciousness is measured in seconds, death in about 4 or 5 minutes. I have never flown a 777, however.

And here is what they said about how long MH370 flew above 42,000 feet:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...maximum-altitude-may-have-caused-hypoxia-says
 

zebra100

Member
If this is the case, every move had a logical purpose. We need all the detailed data to reconstruct a meaningful sequence for a designed plot.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Ok, here is someone's assumption:
Yes, I think it would be very easy for the pilot in command of a 777 to do this — here's one scenario:

  1. Ask the copilot to get a glass of water and lock the cockpit door behind him
  2. Don and activate the oxygen mask
  3. Close the engine bleed air valves that supply cabin pressure
  4. Open the controlled outflow valves to equalize cabin pressure to altitude pressure
  5. Put the passenger/supernumerary oxygen to "reset" (or pull the circuit breaker)
  6. Ascend a little bit above the service ceiling of FL 410.
At FL 450, consciousness is measured in seconds, death in about 4 or 5 minutes. I have never flown a 777, however.

And here is what they said about how long MH370 flew above 42,000 feet:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/...maximum-altitude-may-have-caused-hypoxia-says
Firstly.....here's how it works in the real world:

(1)...No, the Captain does not ask the First Officer to get him a drink of water. (Usually, a nice litre of bottled water is already supplied for each pilot...but may vary by airline company policy. Usually, of course, if a beverage is needed, it is provided by the Cabin Crew)

(2)...Well, once one Flight Deck crew exits the Flight Deck (most airlines require ANOTHER crewmember (which CAN be a Flight Attendant) to remain on the Flight Deck, until that other person returns. This procedure is now mandated by the U.S. FAA, but may not be mandated by the ICAO

(3)...No, it is only necessary (in YOUR scenario) to use the Cabin Pressurization controls in manual.

(4)...This is the same as above....repeat.

(5)...Not necessary, since the passenger O2 system only provides approximately 12-15 minutes of breathable O2.

(6)...The B-777 "Service Ceiling" is NOT required. In any event, even at FL350, after only about 20 minutes (for the passengers) that is sufficient to induce unconsciousness.

The Cabin Crew have access to POBs (Portable Oxygen Bottles), but those are small, and designed for perhaps 30 minutes of individual use, per person....at most.

EVERY properly trained airline pilot KNOWS these facts.

EDIT: NOT to impinge on your speculation, just clarifying facts. ;)
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mechanik Plane Image on Google Maps in Cambodia - MH370 Speculation Flight MH370 10
vooke ATSB Final Report on #MH370 Flight MH370 1
vooke Towed #MH370 Search Sonar Vehicle lost Flight MH370 5
Mick West Debunked: MH370: Daily Mail claims new sonar images indicate aircraft debris Flight MH370 3
derwoodii Possible MH370 Debris found on Reunion Island Flight MH370 86
S Bruce Robertson's MH370 Theory Flight MH370 35
ddddddddd Debunked: Photo of '777' transported in jungle [Old 737] Flight MH370 2
Trailspotter Strange cloud formation in South Indian Ocean Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Stevan Gvozdenovic Claim: MH370 contrails have been identified Flight MH370 5
Qualiall Malaysian Transport Ministry's first-year report (released March 8th 2015) Flight MH370 4
derwoodii Jeff Wise's new MH370 theory Flight MH370 102
Dechelski Marc Dugain's theory.... thoughts? Flight MH370 10
C MH370: Help me debunk this General Discussion 21
Simon Gunson MH370 Radar sighting in Straits of Malacca debunked Flight MH370 30
zebra100 JAAC- New MH370 Underwater Search Area Definition Flight MH370 60
Mick West Missing African Plane N9784L is a Small Prop Plane, not a Boeing 737, nothing like MH370 General Discussion 17
Josh Heuer Flight mh370 independent group's new search location Flight MH370 8
MikeC Noise record of MH370's crash? Flight MH370 11
zebra100 Newest Sighting of MH370 in Bengal Bay & Andaman Sea Area Flight MH370 12
vooke Inmarsat MH370 Raw Data Released [Unlocked, XLSX, CSV] Flight MH370 28
vooke Debunked: Tim Ackers MH370 Debris Claims Flight MH370 15
derwoodii Debunked: Exploration company "Georesonance" believes it may have found MH370 Flight MH370 572
M Claim: MH370 "thrown around like fighter jet in a bid to avoid radar source"? [Dubious] Flight MH370 11
Mick West Debunked: MH370 call exposing 9/11 cover-up? 9/11 5
Balance Debunked: MH370 Passenger Philip Wood sends Photo/Text from Diego Garcia [Fake EXIF GPS Data] Flight MH370 142
zebra100 Need 3/8/14 Andaman Sea Sat Photos to Verify Malaysia Woman Saw Downed MH370 Flight MH370 85
David Fraser Explained: Search plane in MH370 filmed spraying over Indian Ocean [Fuel dump] Contrails and Chemtrails 18
cjnewson88 MH370 "Clone" being held by Israel? Conspiracy Theories 74
Balance CT Rothschild inherits Freescale Patent from loss of MH370 Conspiracy Theories 5
Mick West MH370: How the AAIB and Inmarsat determined the southern trajectory Flight MH370 55
Mick West MH370: Debunked: Tomnod image of plane in jungle Flight MH370 13
Mick West MH370: Five Indian Ocean Runways found in Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s flight simulator Flight MH370 12
WeedWhacker MH370: Report of Jet flying over Maldives Island Kudahuvadhoo Flight MH370 86
PCWilliams Debunked: MH370. Airport security photos photoshopped? [Photocopier mishap] Conspiracy Theories 13
Rusty Far Eye flight MH370 Sorcha Faal Hoax Story Conspiracy Theories 5
Pete Tar MH370: Debunked: Image of plane over Andaman Islands on Mapbox Map Flight MH370 36
Mick West MH370: Reports of Debris in Malacca Strait by Elka Athina Oil Tanker Flight MH370 15
Mick West MH370: Missing Passengers, Seating, Standby Passengers, Cargo? Flight MH370 9
Joe Flight MH370: China reports possible debris observed Flight MH370 51
derwoodii Flight MH370: Oil Rig Worker Mike McKay claims to spot plane crashing near Vietnam Flight MH370 50
Melbury's Brick Flight MH370 Depressurization Scenarios Flight MH370 117
TWCobra Flight MH370 Speculation Flight MH370 1227
Soulfly Flight MH370 missing - Two passengers board with false ID Flight MH370 48
Mick West "Advanced Aerial Threats" In Report on US Congress' Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 5
Mendel The E-PAI report on the Origins of COVID-19 Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Rico "Leaked" Five Eyes Intelligence Report Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Mick West Hulsey UAF report DATA RELEASE: analysis thread 9/11 29
Mick West Hulsey Report: Columns in Tension and Impossible Fulcrums 9/11 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top