I Think I Saw MH370

[MAP Waves]

Anyone that wants a copy of the original log PM me your email address.

If you still have MAP Source you can under Edit Preferences Time Zone change between UTC or Local for the log. You cannot do this with Homeport.

However we need to know what UTC is there to ensure it correlates with other UTC - On land this is pretty obvious! However within a 100 mile radius there are actually 4 timezones depending which UTC map you use.

I have spoken to Garmin for an hour today and they say that they use standard UTC Timezone Map - What ever that may mean because he quoted me half hourly and sent me to a page where there is no half hourly!

He said he will try find Garmins source map but I have my doubts!

He said he could not tell me the time zone if I gave him a position.

He said you cannot view gmaptz.img???.

I emailed them a grid and asked them to confirm GPS time there.

"I have an issue about the time zone map and how I can see from the track the actual timestamp as opposed to the computer or computer offset timezone for the trapezoid N06 28.7 E93 45.8 , N05 53.8 E93 45.8, N06 53.2 E95 13.6 and N06 08.2 E95 13.6. There appears to be confusion as 3 time zones are possible here depending on sources??"

Wait and see......

Currently best to assume that there is some coordination between manufacturers that they use same UTC.

HOWEVER THIS WOULD APPEAR NOT TO BE THE CASE following a few hours research yesterday.... (I forgot attachment)




This is a comparison of Flightradar24 record of MH370 and ATSB official published initial report.
A difference of about 30 minutes which begs the question which commercial radar data did they use and what would explain this difference if everyone is using the same UTC???
Marc

[SaucySailoress]

Originally Posted by Behoerde K.

I'm sorry, perhaps I should try to make myself more understandable:

To avoid any time zone mix up my questions simply put are:

Where were was the boat at 18:45 UTC?

Where was it at 19:45 UTC?

And so on ...

Can that be said without any doubt (e.g. by comparing a point in the voyage with known time and location with the GPS log - perhaps the time of arrival in port)?

It would be great if the original log could be converted into UTC without any doubt. I just don't have the information to available to do that - or I'm just not capable to see it ... Anyway, I read, that Saucy might take some time off - so I'm pretty much asking around.

Firstly, I have indeed done a runner and left the country. The lengths we will go to to dodge the media Actually, I'm on a visa run. We have internet at the digs, but Marc is lapping it all up!!!

Secondly, I regularly checked our ship's watch (which is set to UST +3, just to further complicate things, but that's so I know when it's good to call him when he's back in Kuwait for work) against the GPS and as far as I know we never went beyond UTC +7. That's not to say we didn't, since even Garmin seems unable to tell us where their time zones are set!

However, Marc has uploaded the data set to UTC in post #207 in an excel file. If someone could copy the relevant portion and just paste it into a post, I think that would be helpful to some readers. I don't have the patience to do stuff like that on my iPad.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Jess928

It would be interesting to know when these forest fires started and whether orange 'outside' contract fire fighting aircraft were flown in from other countries to attend the Sumatrian fires:

MH370 Plane Search Region Infernos Close Int?l Airports | Spies and Intelligence

This may give an explanation to the 'orange' aircraft' doing a practise test 'water bombing' run before fighting the fires around Saucy's position. It may explain the altitude also?

Perhaps you could spend some time Googling and trying to find out for us?

Peter

[Behoerde K.]

Hi Saucy, hi Marc,



thank you for your quick replies!


So I understand correctly: the UTC file is definitely correct and if one wants to work with the data he/she should assume just that.

Thank you very much, since your report has really been making me think for quite some days now. I basically had the gut feeling: "Probably the lady's seen that plane." ...

Anyway, if 18:45 UTC still is

9111
07/03/2014 18:45:45 (UTC)343° trueN6 36.057 E94 26.860

I cannot come to any flight scenario that would fit your observation report. Honestly sorry to say.

As far as I can see, neither the ATSB/Malaysian maps nor any other scenario fitting the Ping Rings, would have MH370 cross from port to starboard behind your stern (and go south or perhaps even east) - at least not within a reasonable distance. Especially not after, say, about 1855 UTC at the latest. There's just no way, as far as I can see.

It would have been a totally different story if the 1945 heading (70°) actually happened to be 1845 UTC. In fact that heading and the 7 o'clock and 5 o'clock directions you gave would be a perfect match to your own report and a MH370 scenario, that is the easiest connection between last radar point, a single turning point to the WNW to that and all the Ping Rings including the 7th arc.

I do, on the other hand, believe, that you, Saucy, being a sailor, probably are doing some sort of orientation on sea all the time in your head anyway and therefore probably have a good recollection of where the boat was going to at that moment (east, you said). But that moment would have to be roughly between 1835 and 1855 UTC, I think.

So, if the boat would indeed have gone east at the time, I'd say, everything would come together. Now I'm simply puzzled over that. Especially since I still find myself thinking: Saucy does make for a fine eye witness.

Then again: perhaps it's just that my maths are messed up. Or some wishful thinking to make the data fit ...

Sorry for bothering you with that UTC stuff so much and thank you both many times for your efforts!

Oh, and here is the relevant part of the UTC log file, Saucy suggested to paste into a post:

910207/03/2014 18:00:45 (UTC)355° trueN6 31.977 E94 27.391
910307/03/2014 18:05:45 (UTC)355° trueN6 32.424 E94 27.350
910407/03/2014 18:10:45 (UTC)351° trueN6 32.913 E94 27.310
910507/03/2014 18:15:45 (UTC)353° trueN6 33.365 E94 27.239
910607/03/2014 18:20:45 (UTC)353° trueN6 33.831 E94 27.184
910707/03/2014 18:25:45 (UTC)352° trueN6 34.295 E94 27.126
910807/03/2014 18:30:45 (UTC)354° trueN6 34.721 E94 27.065
910907/03/2014 18:35:45 (UTC)353° trueN6 35.178 E94 27.013
911007/03/2014 18:40:45 (UTC)347° trueN6 35.648 E94 26.953
911107/03/2014 18:45:45 (UTC)343° trueN6 36.057 E94 26.860
911207/03/2014 18:50:45 (UTC)346° trueN6 36.389 E94 26.755
911307/03/2014 18:55:45 (UTC)345° trueN6 36.727 E94 26.668
911407/03/2014 19:00:45 (UTC)347° trueN6 37.075 E94 26.577
911507/03/2014 19:05:45 (UTC)343° trueN6 37.454 E94 26.488
911607/03/2014 19:10:45 (UTC)258° trueN6 37.720 E94 26.408
911707/03/2014 19:15:45 (UTC)117° trueN6 37.690 E94 26.264
911807/03/2014 19:20:45 (UTC)88° trueN6 37.638 E94 26.366
911907/03/2014 19:25:45 (UTC)78° trueN6 37.643 E94 26.483
912007/03/2014 19:30:45 (UTC)72° trueN6 37.678 E94 26.657
912107/03/2014 19:35:45 (UTC)71° trueN6 37.759 E94 26.906
912207/03/2014 19:40:45 (UTC)72° trueN6 37.840 E94 27.147
912307/03/2014 19:45:45 (UTC)70° trueN6 37.920 E94 27.391
912407/03/2014 19:50:45 (UTC)69° trueN6 38.007 E94 27.629
912507/03/2014 19:55:45 (UTC)69° trueN6 38.103 E94 27.887
912607/03/2014 20:00:45 (UTC)68° trueN6 38.206 E94 28.152

Some smarter people than me make sense of that, please?!

[MAP Waves]

Hi Behoerde,

How would it effect your calculations if the change in flight path did not occur but was the change in course of the boat at 19:15 that gave the appearance of a changed flight path?

The guy that was going to run the simulation today has sent a possible 19:20 flight path, which Kate has checked and he will check against the above and hopefully run it tomorrow if his maths adds up!

Hopefully we will get a helpful result for those that lost loved ones. The depth of knowledge on this forum is fantastic!
Marc

[LCH77]

Behoerde K. & MAP Waves

As noted in my previous post, the two uploaded spreadsheets do not align. The heading of 88° is shown as 19:22 in one sheet and 2:20 AM "local" in the other one. Which is correct? By 2:20 AM Thailand time, MH370 appears to be over 300 nm from this area. What are the headings and location for 1:20 AM Thailand time?

The sailboat was most likely in the area when MH370 flew past but from the description, I believe the sailboat needed to be heading east, not north.

[Jess928]

My previous posts seem to not have been approved by the Moderators yet as it's a shame because I thought they were absolutely valid and constructive points of consideration for Saucy and the forum.

This is a good link to Malaysian 'cloud seeding'. If an orange commercial aircraft the size of a jet liner were used to extinguish forest fires or 'cloud seed', then it may offer an explanation?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/deb...om-c-130.3637/

[MAP Waves]

Originally Posted by LCH77

Behoerde K. & MAP Waves

As noted in my previous post, the two uploaded spreadsheets do not align. The heading of 88° is shown as 19:22 in one sheet and 2:20 AM "local" in the other one. Which is correct? By 2:20 AM Thailand time, MH370 appears to be over 300 nm from this area. What are the headings and location for 1:20 AM Thailand time?

The sailboat was most likely in the area when MH370 flew past but from the description, I believe the sailboat needed to be heading east, not north.

The reason 19:20 and 2:20am show the same thing is because 19:20 is UTC and 2:20am is local time (UTC+7) and hence are the same point as they are the same time expressed in 2 different ways, and at that time the boat was heading Easterly.

For the heading and location at 1:20am you can look it up on Behoerdes reply (see post 394) where he pasted from the spreadsheet in UTC so the timestamp you want is 18:20.

If as you state MH370 appears to be 300nm from this area at this time 19:20 (what is this source?)


Above image shows rough estimated position of 19:40 ping being app 100nm from 19:20 location.

As 300nm (assuming "Southerly flight " direction) means that to have made the inmarsat ping at 19:40 it would have to have turned northerly to make the intersect (attached image show rough position of 19:40 ping being app 100nm from 19:20 location) , and then turn Southerly again to have made the next ping.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Jess928

My previous posts seem to not have been approved by the Moderators yet as it's a shame because I thought they were absolutely valid and constructive points of consideration for Saucy and the forum.

Actually you posted three times one after another with almost identical content. So the moderators got down to business and did a bit of house keeping deleting your duplicate posts to keep the thread on topic.

Pete

[LCH77]

Sorry if I’ve made a mistake. As stated in my previous post, it's easy to get confused when converting time zones. Here is what I was trying to say:

When heading East, a plane crossing from port to starboard across the stern would be going from North to South as stated by the OP. If, OTOH, per the above table, the boat was heading 353° at 18:20 UTC, a plane crossing from port to starboard across the stern, would be going from West to East and completely wrong for MH370.

I used the map released by the Malaysian Government showing the calculated location at 19:41 to estimate the approximate location at 19:20.

Also, I believe that 18:20 UTC +7 is 1:20 AM Thailand time and from maps I have seen it appears that MH 370 flew South pretty close to the 19:40 Ping Ring from about 18:29 to 19:40.

[Behoerde K.]

Response to #395

Originally Posted by MAP Waves

Hi Behoerde,

How would it effect your calculations if the change in flight path did not occur but was the change in course of the boat at 19:15 that gave the appearance of a changed flight path?

Marc

Hi Marc,

I'll have to get back to you on that, run it through STK first, which I don't have here right now and am not sure I will be able to run anytime soon.

And I really need those maps and calculations to compensate for my lack of accurate imagination.

But from what I can tell just from the back of my head there would appear to occur several problems with that:
- MH370 would probably have been far, far away at 1915 already (I'll have to estimate how far with STK, too - especially for the ATSB scenario)
- that plane HAD to make a turn somewhere sometime (but at the theoretical latest not until 1940) to "hit" the other Ping Rings, but if it does that turn too late you get in trouble because it would not "hit" the Ping Rings on the "one turn route" I described or could probably not reach the 1940 Ping Ring in a timely fashion to fit the ATSB scenario at certain coordinates. And also the question would appear: what was the plane doing from 1822 UTC until 1915 UTC?
- all that set aside: IF MH370 passed the boat exactly DURING the boats' turn, so it might appear to be crossing even though it was actually the boat that was turning: I'd like to check the rotation direction in comparison to the plane making its way, say, south, as well. Even though I think, that plane had long passed the boat at that time. This "1915 boat turn scenario" might also conflict with Saucy's statement, that she apparently saw the plane from the side (not from the front or the tail), so it seems to me, that at least the plane was indeed crossing, in other words: flew by, not towards or away from the boat. But on this I might be too critical.

So, you made me twisting my melon again, so much I had to re-read what I posted before. I want to clear up again something I wrote (there might be a difference to what sounds clear to me in English when I write it down to what it sounds like when I read my own words some hours later ...).

Let me just scribble down exactly what path I have in mind when I speak about the "one turn scenario", so as not to be too cryptic about it. Again, I do not say, that's what happened, I say, this was my private hypothesis that helped me think, I understand, what's going on in the world - until I couldn't help but post on this forum:

It is actually quite simple and therefore something even I can think about:

The plane flies at a constant speed of about 480-490 kts (usual travelling speed, smart people told me) all the time from 1822 UTC until 0011/0019 UTC (last handshake ping / partial ping).

The plane continues on the heading it had at 1822 UTC (last military radar contact) for a couple more minutes, taking it further up WNW to a location of about 7.2 or 7.3/94.2 or 94.3, I think. Again this is just from memory, I'll check again later.

The plane is pretty much straight to the north of the boat now (might be around 1845 UTC, I guess, +-10mins)

It then changes course FOR THE LAST TIME in the flight (at least until "hitting" the 7th arc) to a heading of just some degrees less than 190°.

After a few minutes it passes the boat pretty damn close, if I may say so (in an ocean perspective, I guess).

According to the UTC log file it just "flies by" on your port side, disappearing around the direction of your stern, still on your port side. No crossing here (but IF the boat WOULD HAVE been heading east at that time, almost everything - I can't say anything about the other two planes in the air - would fit: the distance, the boats' heading, the planes' heading, Saucys' description of the plane going from 7 o'clock port to 5 o'clock starboard CROSSING the stern).

To say nothing about a possible mechanical failure onboard the plane leading to smoke (possibly flames?) - and perhaps loss of pilot control around that time and therefore no more manouevering (is that spelled correctly?) - but that is HIGHLY speculative, I think.

The plane simply flies along that "slightly under 190° heading", "hitting" all arcs (at least according to my amateurish STK calculations) at the correct times within the margin of error (at least the margin of error, smart people told me about: +- a few nm). I think, it ends some degrees to the west of 90°, by that I mean: "hits the 7th arc" way, way (about 2000 miles perhaps, but I don't remember) to the west of Perth and even "a little" to the south, I seem to remember.

I had done this "rough" scenario when the "raw" data was published and wondered since then why the ATSB was looking so far up to the north-east at the end of a multiple heading change path.

I told myself: perhaps, because these guys know what they're doing and you are somebody who apparently should sleep more.

Then Saucy came along.

Talking about her boat going east and a plane crossing behind her from port to starboard, therefore going south. The rest I described above.

I know, this scenario is way off the latest ATSB scenarios (approximately too little fuel to go that fast and therefore get that far south, several turns to the east during the rest of the flight...).

But since they got it so grossly wrong with that fishernet acoustic ping detection or whatever that was ... I thought: if that lady's seen something, and it fits the data, maybe they better get that sonar mapping device much further to the south-west. BUT APPARENTLY NOT: data being data, showing the GPS logged heading to be quite different around that time.

May be, it's just the simplicity of the scenario, that got me bothering you and the fact, that so far, most airplane accidents that I heard about, didn't need a movie plot that would leave James Bond dropping his jaw to be explained sufficiently.

I also would very much like to see a solution to that mystery, first for the relatives and friends of those onboard. This simply is a never ending nightmare for them, as far as I can imagine. And I guess, I'm still not a 100 percent convinced that Saucys' report can't help with that.

Also, and this is a thought that I simply couldn't express until now: IF the plane went on that "one-turn-route" I'm thinking about, giving the boat and MH370 so very close: In my oppinion (still depending on the direction she was facing) Saucy was VERY LIKELY to observe the plane go by no matter if MH370 was "just" passing by (not crossing over the stern) on the port side.

So why the heck did it go by crossing the stern, according to Saucy?

That boat's position seems quite compelling to me ... if it wasn't for the heading ... I can't get my head around it.

So, Marc, I'll check on that 1915 suggestion and get back to you.

P.S.: Will Pete approve of a post that (again) somehow got that long? If so, I promise to better myself, Pete!

[Coops]

Before all you new members get paranoid about your posts let me explain a couple of things.

If you put in a post, and it violates the rules somehow, we delete it and send you a pm explaining why. If you receive no pm then your post is ok, or we just have not seen it.

If you duplicate your post, either accidentally or you just like it so much that you figure it's worth two posts, then we just delete one of them and you do not get a pm.

Cheers,

Coops.

[Gclark8]

Australia chooses firm to map sea floor in MH370 search - The Malaysian Insider

If at first you don't find it, then FUGRO it!

Fugro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SaucySailoress]

I am not a scientist. I am just a sailor who saw quite a few things on this passage, and wouldn't have thought it out of place if I had seen a mermaid. Although I might have tried to take a photo of that. What I am trying to do is answer questions honestly. That is not easy, given that it took me so long to report my sighting of a glowing orange plane with a bad exhaust.

That said, below is my side of some correspondence with an I dependant investigator, who currently believes my sighting could fit if the plane missed just one ping (I think the first one, and could place the passing at 0220 UST.

Hi ...........

Remember I believed (on the diagram I added in the green lines) that the plane had born away.

Looking at your projection, it seems likely that we hit a lull and went into an accidental gybe; then decided to stay on the new tack. It would have been at this time my scan picked up the orange glow coming towards us from 8 o'clock relative. I held that tack for 5 minutes, which would have been the time in which I watched the glow turn into a plane.

At that stage I must have gone below to turn on the engine battery (there is no question about the engine having gone on at this stage) and probably put the kettle on whilst I was there. By the time I had re-established the new course and got back to the business of glow watching, the relative angle of that plane would have increased, making it look as though it had borne away.

That might explain it.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

[JPA Cate]

I confess I have only scanned the last page of posts.

Here's the issue: are we all togeher on magnetic true vs. Magnetic headaings? Perhaps that will have a bearing (forgive the pun) on the conclusions?

Ann